[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 15787 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:15

- cr - 20246

- RNS

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER M. MACK, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( November 4, 2016 ) Before WILLIAM PRYOR , JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR , Circu it Judges. PER CURIAM: Christopher Mack , who conditionally pleaded guilty to possessin g counterfeit and unauthorized access devices, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3); to possessin g

Case: 15-15787 Date Filed: 11/04/2016 Page: 1 of 42 access - device making equipment, id. § 1029(a)(4); and to aggravated identity theft , id. § 1028A; appeals the denial of his motion to suppress

. Mack argue s that police officers’ warrantless entry to his residence in violation of the Fourth Amendment tainted evidence later seized by the officers based on a search warrant

. Mack also argues that the affidavit in support of the search warrant failed to provide probable cause because it did n ot connect Mack’s residence to any criminal activity

. Because we conclude that the officers seized evidence from Mack’s residence using a warrant su pported by probable cause and based on information obtain ed before the ir warrantless entry, we affirm. T he denial of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact

. United States v. Timmann , 741 F.3d 1170, 1177 (11th Cir. 2013). We review findings of fact for cl ear error and the application of the law to th os e facts de novo

. Id

. “[A] trial judge ’ s choice of whom to believe is conclusive on the appellate court unless the judge credits exceedingly improbable testimony.” United States v. Rami rez

– Chilel , 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002 ) (internal quotation marks, ellipses, and citation omitted)

. “ We may affirm t he denial of a motion to suppress on any ground supported by the record. ” United States v. Caraballo , 595 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2010). Even if we were to assume that the officers’ initial entry to secure Mack’s apartment without a warrant was unlawful, it would not taint their later seizure of

Case: 15-15787 Date Filed: 11/04/2016 Page: 2 of 43 evidence based on a validly issued search warrant. Under the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence is admissible when it is “ obtained from lawful sources and by lawful means independent of the police misconduct.” United States v. Terzado

- Madruga , 897 F.2d 1099, 1115 (11th Cir. 1990)

. The affidavit in support of the warrant to search Mack’s apartment recounted information acquired from a cooperating defendant and the evidence seized from Mack and from his vehicle following his arrest . The affidavit contain ed no information about Mack’s apartment , and the office rs who entered the apartment testified that they conduct ed a “cursory [security] sweep” and did not search for or observ e any contraband or items connected to c redit card fraud . The district court was entitled to credit the officers’ testimony

. See Ramirez

– Chilel , 289 F.3d at 749

. Because the affidavit was not based on any information acquired during the warrantless search, the search warrant was not tainted by the alleged violation of Mack’s rights under the Fourth Amendment

. The affidavit provid ed probable cause that Mack ’s apartment contained

e vidence of credit card fraud

. The affidavit stated that a cooperating defendant confessed that Mack recruited him to collect credit card data on a s kimmer device that Mack provided. The affidavit stated that Mack coll e cted the skimmer device from the defendant and walk ed to his vehicle, which was parked outside an apartment building that was named Brickell on the River. As Mack opened the

Case: 15-15787 Date Filed: 11/04/2016 Page: 3 of 44 glove box inside his vehicle, officers arrested him and seized from him the skimmer device transferred during the controlled delivery , a key fob and a ring of keys, an American Express card, and two cellular telephones, one of which Mack had used to send text messages to the cooperating defendant. Officers also discovered i nside Mack’s vehicle a nother s kimmer device and micro USB ca bles

u sed to transfer data from skimmer devices to a computer. Mack denied residing in the Brickell, even after officers confirmed the address on a Florida driver s database and with the building concierge and used the key fob and one of Mack’s keys to enter the lobby of the building and to unlock the door of his apartment unit

. The affidavit also stated that recruiter s ordinarily return ed the skimmer device to the thief befo re process ing the stolen data and that, “based on his training and experience, . . . [Mack’s apartment] would contain fraud related contraband which [would] complement the counterfeit cards, skimmers, and micro USB cables that were in [his] possession . . . .” See United States v. Joseph , 709 F.3d 1082, 1100 (11th Cir. 2013)

. Based on the affidavit, the judge who issued the warrant could

“ conclude that a fair probability existed that seizable evidence would be found in the place sought to be searched.” United States v. Martin , 297 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Pigrum , 922 F.2d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 1991) ). The affidavit established probable cause to search Mack’s apartment. We AFFIRM the denial of Mack’s motion to suppress. Case: 15-15787 Date Filed: 11/04/2016 Page: 4 of 4