## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 36 00

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

*
Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

. Ri le y Carn ah an , *

*
Defen da nt - App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 8, 2 01 2
Fil ed : J ul y

12 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re LOKEN, COLLO TON, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ri le y Carn ah an en te red a co nd it io na l gu il ty pl ea to ch arg es th at he co ns pi red

t o di st rib ut e at le as t fiv e ki lo gr am s of co cai ne an d 10 0 ki lo gr am s of m ar i ju a n a i n
vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 )(A)-( B), an d 84 6, an d po ss es se d a

fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a dr ug t r a ffi ck in g cri m e in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§ 92 4( c)(1 )( A )

. He ap pe al s di st ric t co ur t or de rs de nyin g hi s m ot io ns to su pp res s 1

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1

Dis tri ct of Io wa, ad op ti ng th e Rep or t an d Rec om m en da ti on of th e Hon or ab le Tho m as J. Sh ie ld s, Ch ie f Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.ev id en ce an d fo r a Fran ks he ari ng , an d hi s req ue st to pl ead gu il ty to th e co ns pi racy 2

ch arg e wit ho ut ad m it ti ng dru g q ua nt it ie s al le ge d i n t he in di ct m en t. We affir m

.

I. The Wa rra nt Sea rch I ss ues

On Apr i l 2 3 a n d 25

, 20 10

, po li ce of fic ers fro m Bet te nd or f an d Dav en po rt,

Io wa, ap pl ie d fo r warra nt s to se arch Carn ah an ’s res id en ce in Bet te nd or f an d hi s
b u s i n e ss , th e Pen ny Ju ic e Co m pa ny, in Dav en po rt, su bm it ti ng ne arl y id en ti cal

su pp or t i n g affi da vi ts

. Two Io wa m ag is tra te jud ge s is su ed th e warra nt s. Offi cers

ex ecu ti ng th e warra nt s on Apr il 30 se iz ed co cai ne , m ari juan a, pr escr ip ti on pi ll s, gu ns ,

cas h, sc al es , pa ck ag in g m at eri al

, an d dr ug pa rap he rn al ia

. Fo ll owi ng hi s in di ct m en t,

C a r na ha n m ov ed to su pp res s th is ev id en ce, arg ui ng th e warra nt s la ck ed pr o b a b l e

cau se

. He la te r m ov ed fo r a Fran ks he ari ng on th e g r o u n d th at th e su pp or ti ng

affi da vi ts “ de li be rat el y om it te d rel ev an t in fo rm at i o n

. ” O n ap pe al

, he arg ue s th e
di st ric t co ur t er red in de nyin g b ot h m ot io ns

.

Alt ho ug h th e warra nt affi da vi ts in cl ud ed ot he r su pp or ti ng in fo rm at io n, th e
is su es rai se d on ap pe al tu rn on th e de sc rip ti on of th ree co nt ro ll ed bu y s co nd uc te d

aft er an an on y m ou s ti p an d ex te ns iv e su rv ei ll an ce le d po li ce to su sp ect on go in g dr ug

tra ffi ck in g at Carn ah an ’s res id en ce an d at Pen ny Ju ic e Co mpan y

. The affi da vi ts

reci te d th at th e co nt ro ll ed bu y s were m ad e us in g a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t de si gn at ed

Jo hn Doe

. The fir st two bu y s -- on e at Pen ny Ju ic e Co m pa ny, th e ot he r at th e

res id en ce -- to ok pl ace “ wit hi n th e la st fo rty-fiv e da y s” b e f o r e th e warra nt

ap pl ic at io ns

. The th ird was m ad e at Pen ny Ju ic e Co m pa ny “ wit hi n th e la st se ve nt y

two ho ur s.” The affi da vi ts de sc rib ed us e of ne arl y id en ti cal pr oc ed u r es fo r each

tra ns act io n. Th e Pen ny Jui ce af fid av it de sc rib ed th e fi rs t b uy as fo ll ows :

Fran ks v. Del aware , 43 8 U.S. 1 54 (19 78 ). 2

-2

-The pu rch as e was m ad e by Jo hn D o e

. Tha t pr io r to th e co nt ro ll ed

pu rch as e You r Affi an t’s Fel lo w Offi cer co nd uc te d a se arch of Jo hn Doe

an d n o c on tra ba nd or Uni te d St at es Cu rren cy was fo un d o n t he pe rs on of Jo hn Doe

. Tha t aft er th e se arch Jo hn Doe was ke pt un de r co ns ta nt

su rv ei ll an ce by You r Affi an t an d You r Affi an t[’]s Fel lo w Offi cers

. Sg t.
Kees [h ]an pr ov id ed Jo hn Doe wit h pr erec or de d Uni te d St at es Cu rren cy whi ch was to b e u s e d f o r th e pu rch as e of po wde r co cai ne

. You r Affi an t’s Fel lo w Offi cers [] th en ob se rv ed Jo hn Doe pr oc eed di rect ly to th e bu si ne ss na m ed Pen ny Ju ic e

. . . whe re Jo hn Doe en te red

. . . . Jo hn

Doe rem ai ne d f

o r a s h o r t ti m e th en ex it ed

. Jo hn Doe th en ret ur ne d to
You r Affi an t’s Fel lo w Offi cer. Jo hn D o e w a s ke pt un de r co ns ta nt

su rv ei ll an ce by Y o u r Affi an t’s Fel lo w Offi cers an d Jo hn Doe ha d no
op po rtu ni ty to g o t o a ny oth er bu si ne ss

. . . an d . . . had no op po rtu ni ty

to pi ck up an y th in g fro m th e gr ou nd or to m eet wit h an y on e go in g to or le av in g th e bu si ne ss

. Tha t on ce Jo hn Doe ret ur ne d to You r A f f ia nt ’s
Fel lo w Offi c e r ’s lo cat io n Jo hn Doe im m ed ia te ly rel in qu is he d th e
pu rp or t e d p o w d e r co cai ne to You r Affi an t’s Fel lo w Offi cer.

. . . Jo hn

Doe st at ed Jo hn Doe di d pu rch as e th e po w de r co cai ne fro m Carn ah an whi le in si de th e Pen ny Jui ce . . . bu il di ng

.

The po wde r te st ed po si ti ve for co cai ne

.

1. Carn ah an fir st arg ue s th e di st ric t cou rt a bu se d i ts di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s

m ot io n fo r a Fran ks he ari ng be cau se he m ad e an ad eq ua te pr el im in ary sh owi ng th at

th e po li ce of

fic ers kn ew an d in te nt io na ll y fai le d to di sc lo se th at Jo hn Doe ha d pr io r

mi s d e mea no r co nv ic ti on s rel at in g to ba d ch eck s, was no w co op erat in g wit h la w

en fo rcem en t to av oi d a m is de m ean or co cai ne po ss es si on ch arg e, an d was be li ev ed to

h av e en ga ge d in recr eat io na l co cai ne us e. He as se rts th at th es e no n- di sc lo su res

ren de red m at eri al ly fal se th e of fic ers ’ av erra ls th at Jo hn Doe was a m at ur e pe rs on of

tru th fu l re pu ta ti on who ha d n o m ot iv e to fal si fy in fo rm at io n.

To warra nt a he ari ng on th e gr ou nd th at m at eri al in fo rm at io n was om it te d fro m

a warra nt affi da vi t, de fen da nt m us t m ak e a “ su bs ta nt i a l p r e l im in ary sh owi ng ” of

de li be rat e fal se ho od or reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r th e tru th

. Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s,

-3

-47 7 F.3 d 55 4, 55 7- 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Here, th ere was no sh owi ng of de li be rat e

fal se ho od

. The of

fic ers ne ve r sa id th e in fo rm an t ha d no cri m in al hi st o r y. R a t h er,

th ey ch eck ed bo xe s on th e st at e co ur t warra nt ap pl ic at io n fo rm sa y in g th e in fo rm an t

was of tru th fu l rep ut at io n an d ha d no m ot i v a t i on to fal si fy in fo rm at io n, an d th en

ex pl ai ne d th at Jo hn Doe de m on st rat ed tru th fu ln es s be cau se hi s in fo rm a t i o n w as

co rro bo rat ed by an an on y m ou s t ip , on go in g s ur ve il la nc e, an d t he co nt ro ll ed bu y s.

“ [B]ecau se a warra nt ap pl ic at io n ne ed on ly s ho w f act s es ta bl is hi ng pr ob ab le

cau se , reck le ss [ di sr eg ard f or th e tru th ] m ay be in ferr ed fro m th e om is si on of

in fo rm at io n fro m an affi da vi t on ly whe n th e m at eri al om it te d wou ld ha ve be en cl earl y
cri ti cal to th e fin di ng of pr ob ab le cau se .” Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 58 1 F.3 d 69 2, 69 5
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Om it ti ng th at a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t ha s a

c r i mi n a l r eco rd or is co op erat in g do es no t sa ti sf y th is rig or ou s st an da rd whe n th e

in fo rm an t’s in fo rm at io n is pa rti al ly co rro bo rat ed or hi s ge ne ral cred ib il it y is

ot he rwis e no t si gn ifi can t to th e pr ob ab le cau se in qu iry. See, e.g ., W il li am s, 47 7 F.3 d

at 55 9- 60 ; Uni te d St at es v. Ri ve ra, 41 0 F.3 d 99 8, 10 02 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ); Uni te d St at es v. Flag g, 91 9 F.2d 49 9, 50 1 (8t h Cir. 19 90 ). Here, t he off ic ers pe rs on al ly ob se rv ed

an d m on it or ed Jo hn Doe ’s co nd uc t in m ak in g co nt ro ll ed bu y s. The on ly in fo rm at io n

Jo hn Doe pr ov id ed was th at

, whi le in si de

, he pu rch as ed th e co cai ne fro m Carn ah an

. As ex pl ai ne d in th e affi da vi ts

, th at in fo rm at io n was at le as t pa rti al ly co rro bo rat ed an d

in an y ev en t was no t cr it ic al to est ab li sh pro ba bl e cau se for warran t se arch es of th e

pr em is es

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g a Fran ks he ari ng

. 3

Carn ah an al so arg ue s th at m in or in co ns is te nc ie s in de sc rib in g th e co nt ro ll ed 3

bu y s were fal se st at em en ts or m ad e wit h reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r th e tru th

. So m e of th e al le ge d in co ns is te nc ie s were no t arg ue d to th e di st ric t co ur t an d th eref or e m ay no t be
rai se d on ap pe al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Neu m an n, 88 7 F.2 d 88 0, 88 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (en ba nc ), cert . d en ie d, 49 5 U.S. 9 49 (1 99 0)

. No n e w a s m at eri al to th e sh owi ng of

pr ob ab le cau se

. See Uni te d St at es v. Fo rm aro , 15 2 F.3 d 76 8, 77 0- 71 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ).

-4

-2. Carn ah an ne xt arg ue s th at th e warra nt affi da vi ts la ck ed a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng

of pr ob ab le cau se be cau se th e co nt ro ll ed bu y s were st al e ev e n t s an d th e earl ie r

an on y m ou s ti p an d su rv ei ll an ce di d no t in de pe nd en tl y es ta bl is h pr ob ab le cau se

. The

affi da v i ts reci te d th at th e po li ce co rro bo rat ed th e an on y m ou s ti p wit h ex te nd ed

su rv ei ll an ce fo ll owe d by t hr ee co nt ro ll ed bu y s. Th e b u ys were co nd uc te d wit h th e

ki nd o f care fu l pr oc ed ur es th at pr od uc e hi gh ly rel ia bl e ev id en ce of on go in g dr ug

tra ffi ck in g. See Uni te d St at es v. Ro dg ers , 73 2 F.2 d 62 5, 63 0- 31 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ). The

th ird bu y , m ad e wit hi n 72 ho ur s of th e warra nt ap pl ic at io ns , can ha rd ly be de e m ed

st al e in fo rm at io n. Mo r e o v e r , “ [i]n in ve st ig at io ns of on go in g na rco ti cs op erat io ns , in te rv al s of week s or m on th s b e t w e en th e la st de sc rib ed act an d th e ap pl ic at io n fo r

a warra nt do es no t ne ces sa ril y m ak e th e in fo rm at io n st al e.” Uni te d St at es v. Je an et ta

, 53 3 F.3 d 65 1, 65 5 (8 th Ci r.) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 55 5 U.S. 10 79 (2 00 8)

.

Hav in g c aref

ul ly revi ewed th e le ng th y , d et ai le d a ffi da vi ts , we agr ee wi th th e
di st ric t co ur t th at th ey sh owe d “ a co ns is te nt pa tt ern of dr ug tra ffi ck in g act iv it y

sp an ni ng a si x m on th pe rio d of ti m e wit h no in di cat io n th at th e act iv it y ha s ceas ed ,”

an d th at “ th e is su in g jud ge co ul d fai rly be li ev e th at each of th e pr em is es so ug ht to be

se arch ed wou ld co nt ai n ev id en ce of dr ug tra ffi ck in g.” Here, as in Uni te d St at es v.

Mo nt es -Me di na , th e to ta li ty of th e in fo rm at io n co nt ai ne d in th e affi da vi ts es ta bl is he d

“a f a i r p r o b ab il it y th at co nt rab an d or ev id en ce of a cri m e [wo ul d] be fo un d in a

pa rti cu la r pl ace,” 57 0 F.3 d 10 52

, 10 59 -6 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), qu ot in g Ill in oi s v. Gate s,

46 2 U.S. 21 3, 23 8 (1 98 3)

. Carn ah an ’s su gg es ti on th at th e warra nt s la ck ed pr ob ab le

cau se be cau se th ey were no t ex ecu te d fo r fiv e to se ve n da y s aft er is su an ce is wit ho ut

m eri t. See Formaro, 152 F.3 d at 77 1. The m ot io n to su pp res s was pr op erl y de ni ed

.

II . The Gu il ty Plea Is su e

Co un t 1 of th e in di ct m en t ch arg ed th at Carn ah an an d ot he rs co ns pi red “ to

kn owi ng ly di st rib ut e at le as t fiv e ki lo g ram s of a m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng co cai ne an d at

le as t 10 0 ki lo gr am s of a m ix tu r e c o n t ai ni ng m ari juan a.” Carn ah an fil ed a m ot io n

-5

-s e e k i ng le av e to “ en te r a gu il ty pl ea to Co un t 1, th at is co ns pi racy to di st rib u t e

co cai ne an d m ari

juan a in vi ol at io n of [2 1 U.S.C. §§ ] 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 6,” bu t st at in g
he “ is no t wi ll in g to en te r hi s pl ea to th e qu an ti ti es ” al le ge d in th e in di ct m en t. The

go ve rn m en t op po se d th is m ot io n. Afte r br ie fin g, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n

on th e gr ou nd “ th at a de fen da nt ha s no rig ht to pl ead gu il ty to a ch arg e ot he r th an th at

in th e in d i c t men t.” W it h th e go ve rn m en t’s ag reem en t, Carn ah an th en en te red a

co nd it io na l gu il ty pl ea to Co un ts 1 an d 2, res erv in g th e rig ht to ap pe al th is ru li ng

. By
pl ead in g to th e dr ug qu an ti ti es al le ge d, Carn ah an be cam e s u b ject to a m an da to ry

m in im um te n- y ear pr is on se nt en ce an d an in crea se d st at ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce on

Co un t 1

, s e e 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A), pl us a co ns ecu ti ve m in im um fiv e y ears on

Co un t 2. At se nt e n c i n g , th e pa rti es ag reed th at no dr ug qu an ti ty fin di ng s were

ne ces sa ry be cau se th e m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ces es ta bl is he d a ba se fro m whi ch

red uc ti on s ba se d on th e go ve rn m en t’s su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce m ot io n wou ld be

de te rm in ed

. Afte r he ari ng ev id en ce an d arg um en t on th at is su e, th e co ur t gr an te d th e

su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce m ot io n an d se nt e n c e d C arn ah an to 75 m on th s in pr is on on

Co un t 1 an d a co ns ecu ti ve 40 m on th s o n C ou nt 2.

On ap pe al

, Carn ah a n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in

de nyin g hi s gu il ty pl ea m ot io n bec au se “ dr ug qu an ti ty is a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t

an d no t a fo rm al el em en t of th e of fen se s se t ou t in 21 U.S.C. § 84 1.” Tha t as se rti on
is no t en ti rel y tru e -- dr ug qu an ti ty is an el em en t of th e of fen se whe n it in crea se s th e

st at ut or y m ax im

um se n t e n c e p res cri be d fo r an in de te rm in at e qu an ti ty. See Uni te d

St at es v. Turn er, 60 3 F.3 d 46 8, 4 7 1 ( 8 t h C ir.)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 13 1 S. Ct

. 82 0 (2 01 0) ;
Uni te d St at es v. W eb b, 54 5 F.3 d 67 3, 67 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 12 9 S

. C t.

20 21 (2 00 9) ; Uni te d St at es v. Sh ep pa rd

, 21 9 F.3 d 76 6, 76 7- 69 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ), cert

. de ni ed , 53 1 U.S. 1 20 0 (2 00 1)

. “ A fact

. . . th at in crea se s t he m ax im um pu ni sh m en t

fo r an of fen se is th e fu nc ti on al eq ui va le nt of an el em en t of a gr eat er of fen se .” Uni te d

St at es v. Agu a yo -Del ga do

, 22 0 F.3 d 92 6, 93 3 (8 th Ci r.) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed , 53 1 U.S. 1 02 6 (2 00 0)

.

-6

-A de fen da nt pl e a d s “ to th e in di ct m en t or in fo rm at io n.” Fed

. R. Cri m

. P.

10 (a)( 3)

. It lo gi cal ly fo ll ows , as th e di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed

, th at “ [a] de fen da nt ha s

no ab so lu te rig ht to pl ead gu il ty to a ch arg e ot he r th an th at in th e in di ct m en t.” Uni te d

St at es v. Mi ch el -Ga l a vi z, 41 5 F.3 d 94 6, 94 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). As th e Nin th Ci rcu it

ex pl ai ne d in Uni te d St at es v. Gray

, 44 8 F.2 d 16 4, 16 8 (9 th Ci r. 19 71 ), “ a pl ea to a
le ss er in cl ud ed of

fen se m ay no t be te nd ered

, an d can no t be a c c e p t ed by th e co ur t,

un le ss th e go ve r n ment co ns en ts

. Eve n th en , th e be tt er pr act ic e wou ld be fo r th e

go ve rn m en t t o f

i l e a su pe rs ed in g in fo rm at io n or in di ct m en t ch arg in g th e le ss er

of fen se .” W e reject di ct a to th e co nt rary in Uni te d St at es v. Tho m as , 35 5 F.3 d 11 91

, 11 98 (9t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

“ A pl ea of gu il ty is th e eq ui va le nt of ad m it ti ng al l m at eri al fact s al le ge d in th e
ch arg e.” Uni te d St at es v. Apk er, 17 4 F.3 d 93 4, 94 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ); se e Uni te d St at es

v. W hi te

, 40 8 F.3d 39 9, 40 2 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 54 6 U.S. 10 25 (2 00 5) ; O’ Leary

v. Uni te d St at e s , 8 5 6 F

. 2 d 11 42

, 11 43 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ). The di sc ret io n to reject a

te nd ered gu il ty pl ea i s mo s t of te n ex erci se d whe n th e de fen da nt can no t or wil l no t

pr ov id e th e ad eq ua te fact ua l ba si s fo r th e pl ea th at Ru le 11 (b )(3 ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s

of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e req ui res

. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Ajijol a, 58 4 F.3 d 76 3,

76 6- 67 (7 th Ci r. 20 09 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 0 S

. C t. 24 21 (2 01 0) ; Uni te d St at es v.

W il li am s, 55 7 F.3 d 55 6, 55 9- 60 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 1 3 0 S

. Ct

. 23 7 (2 00 9) ;
Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti n, 52 8 F.3 d 74 6, 75 0- 51 (1 0t h Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 55 5 U.S. 96 0
(2 00 8)

. Here, Carn ah an ’s m ot io n de cl ared th at he was un wil li ng to ag ree to th e dr ug

qu an ti ty al le ga ti on s in Co un t 1 o f th e in di ct m en t. Thi s res ul te d in an in su ffi ci en t

fact ua l ba si s fo r th e of

fe ns e ch ar

ge d

, a so un d reas on fo r th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex erci se

of it s di sc ret io n to reject th e pr of fere d pl ea, as we ex pr es sl y he ld in Uni te d St at es v.

B r o w n , 33 1 F.3 d 59 1, 59 4- 95 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). Bro wn is co nt ro ll in g pr eced en t; t h e
de ni al of C arn ah an ’s pl ea m ot io n m us t b e aff irmed.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-