Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R.4 7.5 the Court h as determined th at this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin5 TH C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40278 UN I TE D S TA TE OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. EA RN EST LYN N RO SS D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 4 :08 -C R -1 4 3 -1 B ef ore G A R W O O D , W IE N E R , an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. G A R W O O D , C i rcui tJu dg e: * O n N ovem ber 21, 200 8, a j u ry f ou n d d efen da n t - ap pel l an t , E arn est L y n n R o ss (R o ss ), g u il tyon tw o co u n ts o f be in ga felo n in p o ss e ss ion of a f i r ear m , i n vi ol at i on o f 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . Ross w as s ent enc ed t o 1 20 m ont hs i m pri so nm enton e ac h co unt, t o r un co nse c ut ivel y f ora t ot alof

240 m o nt hs . H e a ppe al s hi s c o nvi c t i o n a nd h i s s e nt e nc e , a r gui ng t hatt he prosecuti on ’ s use of

a perem ptory c h al l en ge an d tw o chal l en ges f or c au se duri ng voi rdi r e v i ol at ed hi s c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght s, t hatt he e vi denc e a tt r i al United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 23, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/20102

w as i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o s upp o r tt he j ur y’ s v e r di c t , t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tm ad e s e v e r a l e r r o r s a t h is s e n te n c in g , a n d th a t t h e s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e o f h is v e h ic le w as i l l e ga l . W e a f

f i r m f o rt he r e as o ns he r e i n b e l o w s t at e d. F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS B E L OW In Ju n e 200 8, an i n f orm an tna m ed S edri c A u t rey noti f i ed the pol i ce t h at he, R oss, C ou rt n ey F arm er ( F arm er) , an d D evi n Steph en ( S t eph en ) w ere pl anni ng t o s t age a hom e i nvasi on t o r ob a r es i denc e i n D ent on C ount y, T e x a s . A c c o r d i n gt o A u t r e y , R o s s h a d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n n u me r o u s h o me i n va sion s ov er th e p a st sev era lye a rs i n w h i ch h e a n d A u treyattem p ted to i den t i f y h om es w i t h l arge st ores of cash, i m persona t ed p ol i ce of f i cers or furn i tu re d elive ry m en i n ord er to g a i n en try, a n d the n su b d u ed the occu p a n ts byt hr e at e ni ng t he m w i t h f i r e ar m s a nd r e s t r ai ni ng t he m w i t h z i p- t i e s . The pol i c e pr ovi ded Au t r ey w i t h a r ec or di ng devi c e, and he r ec or ded s eve r al in c r im in a tin gco n v e r s a tio n s h e h a d w ith R o s s w h ile th e yw e r e p la n n in gth e ir n ext h om e i n vasi on . Th e pol i ce photograph ed these m eet i n gs f rom conceal ed p o s itio n s . O n Ju n e 16, 200 8, t h e ni gh tof t h e pl an n ed h om e i n vasi on , t h e pol i ce a r r e s te d th e fo u rco n s p ir a to r s w h e n th e yg a th e r e d in th e p a r k in glo t o f a W a lM ar tt o dr ive t o t he r e s i de nc e t he y hadde c i de d t o r o b. The o f f i c e r s f o und a l o c ke d s ui t c as e i ns i de t he t r unk o f Ros s ’ s v e hi c l e , w hi c h t he y unl o c ke d wi t h a k e yfo u n d o n R o s s ’ s k e yrin g . In s id e w e r e a b a gco n ta in in ga S a m o z a r y a d n iy K arabin si st em iSim on ova ( S K S ) ri f l e an d a ba ckp ack con t ai n i n g a . 40 cal iber pi s t o l . The y al s o f

o und a W al t he rP22 pi s t o li ns i de a l ap t o p c as e l i ke o ne R oss h ad been seen carryi n g on previ ou s oc casi on s. A n ot h er . 40 cal iber pi st ol w as f o und i n t he f

r o nts e ato f

t he c aro n t he pa s s e nge r ’ s s i de . Al lo f t he f i rearm s’m aga zi n es w ere l oad ed. H ow ever, R oss’ s f i n gerpri n t s w ere not f ou n d on an y of

t h e gu n s. Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/20103

O n J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e p o li c e e x e c u t e d a s e a r c h w a r r a n to n S t e p h e n ’s r es i denc e a f

t erl ear ni ng t hatR os s had l ived t her e pr i ort o t he June 16 r obbe r y. The s ear c h pro duce d t w o s hot guns t hathad bee n st ol en duri ng a h om e i n vasi on on M ay 15 , 200 8. O n t h e f ol l ow i n g da y, A u t rey t ol d the pol i ce t hatt he c ons pi r at or s had st or ed m or e s t ol en pr ope r t y i n a gar age i n I r vi ng, Tex as . The a ddr e s s o f t he g ar ag e w as f

o und i n Ros s ’ s w al l e t . W he n t he pol i c e s ear c hed t he gar age, t hey f ound anot herSK S ri f l e a nd se ver al h a n d g u n s . R os s’ s t r i albe gan on N ove m ber18, 2008. D uri ng voi rdi r e, Panel i st s 14 and4 1 e xp r e s s e d d o ubtt hatt he y c o ul d he art he c as e i m pa r t i al l y, a nd t he G overnm en tm oved t o st ri ke them f or c au se. R oss obj ect ed, bu tt h e di st ri ct c o ur to ve r r ul e d hi s o bj e c t i o n a nd e xc us e d t ho s e pa ne l i s t s . The G o ve r nm e nt t h e n u s e d a p e r e mp t o r ys t r i k e t o r e mo v e P a n e l i s t1 0 , wh o wa s o n e o f t wo bl ac k p ane l i s t s . Ros s o bj e c t e d a nd d e m and e d a n e xp l ana t i o n f o rt he govern m en t ’ s r eason un der B at s on v. K e nt ucky , 1 06 S. Ct . 1 71 2 ( 19 86 ) . The di st ri ctcourtasked T racey B atson, t h e prosecutor , t o expl ai n her reason f or st ri king P an el i st10. B atson explai n ed that Pa n el i st10 h ad fal l en asl eep du ri n g voi r di re, ha d p revi ou sl y sat on a cr i m i n alhu n g j u ry, an d h ad given h er a “ m ean ” l ook. Th e courtf ou n d that t h ese r eason s w ere not di s c r i m i nat o r y ando ve r r ul e d t he o bj e c t i o n. D u r in gth e tr ia l, t h e G o v e r n m e n tp r e s e n t e d te s t im o n yfr o m a llo f R o s s ’s know n co - c ons pi r at or s. I tal so i nt r oduc ed t he t apes of t he c onver sa t i ons t hat A ut r ey had se c r et l y r ec or ded, i n w hi c h a vo i c e i dent i f i ed as R os s’ s c oul d be h eard p l an n i n g a h om e i n vasi on . Th e propri et or of a m i l i t ary surplus st ore t est i f i ed that R oss h ad bou gh tseveralf i rearm s acc essor i es t h ere t h at w ere l aterf ou n d w i t h t h e gu n s w h en R oss w as arres t ed. Th e propri et or al so te s tifie d th a t R o s s ’ s w ife h a d p u r c h a s e d a W a lte rP 2 2 fr o m h is s to r e . A Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/20104

Bure au o f

Al c o ho l , To ba c c o , Fi r e ar m s , a nd Exp l o s ive s ( BA TFE ) a ge nt t e s t i f i e d t hata l lo f

t he g uns Ros s w as a c c us e d o f po s s e s s i ng l i s t e d i n c o unt on e a n d on e of tho se li sted i n cou n t t w o h a d m ov ed i n an d affected i n tersta te c o m m e r c e . Fi nal l y, t w o o f Ros s ’ s v i c t i m s t e s t i f i e d t hatt he t w o s ho t gun s fo u n d in S te p h e n ’ s h o u s e h a d b e e n s to le n fr o m th e irh o m e . T h e j u ry f

ou n d R oss gu i l t y on both coun t s of bei n g a fel on i n possess i on o f f i r e ar m s . Ats e nt e nc i ng, Ros s f o rt he f i r s tt i m e m o ve d t o s upp r e s s t he ev i d en ce th a t w a s seized du ri n g th e se a rch of h i s ca r. H e a l so o b j ected to s e v e r a l re c o m m e n d a tio n s in h is P r e -S e n te n c e R e p o r t (P S R ), a r g u in gth a t h is se nt enc e s houl d notbe enhance d f orbe i ng t he l eade rof t he pl anned r obbe r y, for po sse ssinggu n s th a t w ere n ot l i sted i n h i s i n d i ctm en t, or for plan n i n g to us e t he f

i r e ar m s t o c o m m i tt he r o bb e r y he a l l e ge dl y hadb e e n pl anni ng. The d is t r ic tc o u r to v e r r u le d h is o b je c t io n s a n d a d o p t e d th e P S R ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n s . R o s s tim e lyfile d a n o tic e o f a p p e a l. DI S CU S S I ON R oss argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtm ad e seven error s. Fir st , he argu es t hathe i s e nt i t l e d t o a ne w t r i al , b e c aus e t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta l l o w e d t he G o ve r nm e ntt o e xe r c i s e a pe r e m pt o r y c hal l e nge a ga i ns tab l ac k j ur o ro n t he basi s of her race, i n vi ol ati on of hi s r i gh tt o du e process . Secon d, he argu es t hathe i s e nt i t l e d t o a ne w t r i alb e c aus e t he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n e xc us i ng tw o ju r o r s fo rca u s e w h e n n o ca u s e e x is te d . T h ir d , h e a r g u e s th a t h is c o n v ic tio n s h o u ld b e re v e r s e d , b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in gh is m ot i on f

or acqui t t al . H i s f

ou rt h , f i f t h , an d si xth assi gn m en t s of err or c on cern t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c al cul ati on of hi s s en t en ce pursu an tt o t h e U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g C om m i ssi on ’ s G ui de l i ne s Manua l( S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es or G ui del i nes ) . Seve nt h, he ar gues t hatt he di st r i c tc our ter r ed bydenyi ng as unt i m e l y hi s m o t i o n t o s upp r e s s e vi de nc e . W e di s c us s e ac h i s s ue i n t ur n, Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/20105

a l o n gwi t h i t s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. I . Th e Pere m pt or y C hal l enge R oss argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed byoverrul i n g h i s B ats on obj ect i on t o t h e G overnm en t ’ s use of a perem ptory c h al l en ge aga i n stP an el i st 10 a tt h e concl u si on of voi r di re. A . St andard of

R evi ew W e r evi ew a di st r i c tc our t ’ s r ul i ng on a B ats on o b je c tio n fo rcle a re r r o r . Un itedS ta tes v. D a v is , 3 9 3 F .3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 4 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s det er m i nat i on i s ent i t l ed t o g r eatdef er enc e, be c ause f

i ndi ngs i n t hi s c ont ext l argel y t u rn on an eval u ati on of t h e cr edibi l i t y or dem ean or of t h e att orney w h o e x e r c is e s th e p e r e m p to r ych a lle n g e in q u e s tio n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. B entleyS m ith , 2 F. 3d 1368, 1372–7 3 ( 5t h C i r . 1993) (c i t i ng B at s on v. K e nt ucky , 47 U . S. 7 9, 9 8 n. 21 , 1 06 S. Ct . 1 71 2, 1 72 4 n. 21 ( 19 86 ) , a nd Hernan d ez v. New Y ork , 5 0 0 U .S . 3 5 2 , 1 1 1 S .C t. 1 8 5 9 , 1 8 6 9 (1 9 9 1 ) (p lu r a lityo p in io n )). B . Th e Ch al l enge W e f ol l ow a t h ree- st ep p roces s i n deter m i n i n g w h et h er ornot p e r e m p to r ys tr ik e s h a v e b e e n a p p lie d in a d is c r im in a to r ym a n n e r . B entleyS m ith , 2 F . 3d at 137 3. Fir st , t h e party m ak i n g t h e B ats on obj ect i on m u st m ak e a pri m a faci e show i n g t h at t h e perem ptory c h al l en ge w as exerci sed on th e b a s is o f r a c e . Id . Se c o nd, i f t hi s s ho w i ng i s m ad e , t he b ur de n s hi f t s t o t he pa rt y accused of di scr i m i n ati on t o art i cul ate a r ace- n eu t ralreason f or i t s use o f th e p e r e m p to r ych a lle n g e . Id . Fi nal l y, t he t r i alc o ur tm us tde t e r m i ne w h et h er ornot t h e party m ak i n g t h e B ats on obj ect i on ha s c arri ed i t s burd en o f p r o v in gp u r p o s e fu l d is c r im in a tio n . Id . Th e shi f t i n g bu rden i n t h i s t h reep a r t t e s t is a b u r d e n o f p r o d u c tio n o n ly . Id . Th e ul t i m ate burden of persua si on al w ays l i es w i t h t h e party m ak i n g t h e B ats on o bje c tio n . Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/23/20106

B atson st ated t h at s h e exerci sed t h e G overnm en t ’ s perem ptory c hal l enge, be c ause Panel i st10 had fal l en as l ee p duri ng voi rdi r e, had previ ou sl y sat on a cr i m i n alhu n g j u ry, an d h ad given her a m ean l ook. R oss argu es t h at t h ese asser t i on s w ere not sup ported by t h e rec ord an d w ere t he r e f o r e l e ga l l y i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t ab l i s h a r ac e - ne ut r alr e as o n f o rdi s m i s s i ng Pane l i s t1 0. H e r e l i e s o n t he pa ne lo pi ni o n o f t he Ei ght h Ci r c ui ti n Un i t ed S t ate s v. Wi lson , 8 5 3 F .2 d 6 0 6 , 6 1 0

– 1 1 (8 th C ir .), vaca t ed , 86 1 F . 2 d 51 4 ( 8 th Ci r . 1 98 8) ( e n b anc ) , w hi c h he l d t hatpe r e m pt o r y c hal l e nge s v i o l at e d B ats on w her e t hey w er e no ts upport ed byt he t r i alr ec or d and t hus c oul d notbe v e r i f i e d . T h i s o p i n i o n w a s v a c a t e d , a n d t h e e n b a n c c o u r tr e a c h e d t h e s a me r e s ul tund e rdi f

fe r e ntr e as o ni ng i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. Wi lson , 884 F. 2d 1121 ( 8t h C i r . 1989) ( en banc ) . N eve r t hel es s, R os s’ s ar gum entr ec eives s om e l egal s upp o r tf

r o m t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s o pi ni o n i n Snyd e rv . Lo ui s i ana , 12 8 S . C t. 12 03 , 1 20 9 ( 20 08 ) . I n S nyd er , t h e prosecuti on exerci sed a perem ptory c h a lle n g e a g a in s t a p a n e lis t in p a r t b e c a u s e h e h a d s e e m e d u n u s u a lly n e r v o u s d u r in gv o ird ir e . Id . The C our tf ound t hata B ats on vi ol at i on had o c c ur r e d b e c aus e t he r e c o r d r e f ut e d t he no n- de m e ano r - ba s e d g r o und f o rt he s t r i ke , a nd t he r e c o r d d i d no tr e f l e c tt hatt he t r i alc o ur tha d c r e di t e d t he p r o s e c u tio n ’ s d e m e a n o r -b a s e d ra tio n a le . S ee id . B u tse e Th ayle r v. Hayn es , N o. 09- 273, 559 U . S. ___, s l i p op. at*6

- 7 ( 2010) (perc uri am ) (hol di ng t hat S nyd er“ do[es ] not s u ggest t h at, i n t h e absen ce of a persona lrec ol l ect i on of t h e ju r o r ’s d e m e a n o r , t h e ju d g e c o u ld n o th a v e a c c e p t e d th e p r o s e c u t io n ’s [d e m e a n o r -b a s e d ] e x p la n a tio n ” fo ra p e r e m p to r ys tr ik e ). Th e r ec or d i n R os s’ s c as e c ont ai ns no suc h f l aw s. Bats on s t at ed t hat herr eas ons f

orc hal l engi ng Pan el i st10 w er e t hats he w as i nat t ent ive, had s e r ve d o n a c r i m i nalhungj ur y, a nd h adg ive n Bat s o n a m e an l o o k. The Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/23/20107

di st ri ctcourtconf

i rm ed on t h e rec ord t h at Pa n el i st10 “di d say sh e w as a j ur o rf r o m a hungj ur y, a nd s he di dn’ ts e e m pa r t i c ul ar l y at t e nt ive . . . . ” The di st r i c tc our ts t at ed t hati thad nots ee n P anel i st10 g ive B at so n any m ean l o o ks , b utt hati tdi d no tb e l i e ve , b as e d o n i t s o bs e r va t i o n o f Bat s o n t hats he w as a t t e m pt i ng t o e xc l ude Pane l i s t1 0 ba s e d o n he rr ac e . The r e f o r e , t he recor d su pp ort s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on t h at B atson’ s r eason s f or e x c lu d in gP a n e lis t 1 0 w e r e ra c e -n e u tr a l a n d th a t R o s s d id n o t s a tis fyh is burde n of

es t abl i shi ng purpo se f uldi sc r i m i nat i on. Acc or di ngl y, w e ho l d t hat t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y err by d en yi n g R oss’ s B ats on o b je c tio n . II. C h a l l en g es for C a u se R o s s ’ s s e c o n d a s s ig n m e n t o f e r r o ris th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d h is Si xt h A m endm entr i ghtt o afai rt r i alby i m pro per l y e xc usi ng Pan el i st s 14 and4 1 f

o rc aus e . H e a r gue s t hat , a l t ho ugh b o t h i ni t i al l y i ndi c at e d d ur i ng voi rdi r e t hatt hey had do ubt s aboutt hei rabi l i t y t o he art he c as e i m par t i al l y, he s uc c e e de d i n r e hab i l i t at i ng t he m t hr o ugh f ur t he rq ue s t i o ni ng. The G ov ern m en t con ten d s th a t t h e rec ord su p p orts th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s d ecisi on to excl u de both p an el i st s. A . St andard of

R evi ew W e rev i ew a d i stri ct cou rt’ s ru l i n g o n a p rosp ective j u ror’ s i m p a rti a l i ty fo rm a n ife s t a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. W h art on , 320 F. 3d 526, 535 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld e x c u s e a p a n e lis t fo rca u s e if h is

“vi ew s w oul d pr eve ntors ubst ant i al l y i m pai rt he per f or m ance of

hi s dut i es as a j u ror in a ccord a n ce w i th h i s i n stru cti on s an d h i s oa th . ” Id . ( quot i ng S o ria v. Joh n son , 207 F. 3d 232, 242 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng W ai nw r ight v . Witt , 1 0 5 S .C t. 8 4 4 , 8 5 7 (1 9 8 5 ))) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d ). B . Th e Ch al l enges Adefen da n tw h o app eal s a di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o excl u de a Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/23/20108

po t e nt i alj ur o rf

o rc aus e c anno to bt ai n r e ve r s alo f hi s c o nvi c t i o n unl e s s he s h o w s th a t t h e ju r ya c tu a llys e le c te d w a s b ia s e d . Uni t e d St at e s v . Hi c km an , 33 1 F. 3d4 39 , 4 45 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) . Ros s ha s no ta l l e ge d, m uc h l e s s s ho w n, t h a tt h e j u r yu l t i ma t e l ye mp a n e l e d i n h i s c a s e wa s b i a s e d . T h e r e f o r e , we d e c lin e to fin d a n yre v e r s ib le e r r o rw ith re s p e c t t o th is is s u e . S ee id . M o r e o ve r , a nd i n a ny e ve nt , w e f i nd n o m ani fe s ta bus e o f di s c r e t i o n i n t he di st ri ctcourt ’ s r u l i n gs on these chal l en ges. I I I . Su f

f i ci en cy of

t h e E vi de n ce In his t h i rd assi gn m en tof err or, R oss argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt e r r e d b yd e n y in gh is m o tio n fo ra ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l. H e a r g u e s th a t t h is m ot i on shou l d h ave been gran t ed, becau se t h e evi den ce w as i n suff i ci en ton b o t h c o u n t s to s u s t a in th e ju r y ’s g u il t yv e r d ic t . T h e fi r s tc o u n to f R o s s ’s i ndi c t m e ntc har ge d hi m w i t h po s s e s s i o n o f “ o ne o rm o r e o f

” t he w e ap o ns recover ed f

rom hi s vehi cl e i m m edi atel y af t er hi s arr est . Th e sec on d coun tof hi s i ndi c t m e ntc har ge d hi m w i t h po s s e s s i o n o f “ o ne o rm o r e o f

” t he w e ap o ns r ec ove r ed f

r om St ephen’ s house on t he f ol l ow i ng day. A . St andard of

R evi ew W e re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to a c q u it d e n o v o . Uni t e d S t at e s v. Mc Cow an , 469 F. 3d 386, 390 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) . “ Th e j ury’ s ver di c tw i l lbe af f i r m e d i f a r e as o nab l e t r i e ro f fac tc o ul d c o nc l ude f r o m t he e vi de nc e t hatt he el em ent s of

t he o f fens e w er e e st abl i she d bey ond a r eas onabl e do ubt . ” Id . ( quot i ng Uni t e d St at e s v . D e l ga do , 2 56 F. 3d2 64 , 2 73 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1) ) . The r e v ie w in gco u r t m a k e s a ll re a s o n a b le in fe r e n c e s a n d cr e d ib ilitych o ic e s in fa v o ro f th e ju r yv e r d ic t. Un itedS ta tes v. D ev ille , 278 F . 3d 500 , 505 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ). B . Fel on i n P os s es s i on In or d e r to co n v ict a d e fen d a n t of h a v in gb e e n a felo n in p o ss e ss ion of a Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/23/201018U.S.C . § 922provi des, inrelevantpart: 1 “§ 922. Unlawful Acts * ** (g) Itshall be unl awful for anyper son— ( 1 ) who h as b eenconvicted in anycourt of, a crime punishableby imprison ment for ater m exceedingone year; *** to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or p ossess inor affectingcommerce, anyfirearm or a mmunition ; or to receiveany firearm or amm uniti on whi ch hasbeen ship pedor trans portedin inters tat e or for eign co mmerc e. ” 1 8U .S .C .A . § 9 2 2 (g)( 1 ) (Wes t 2 0 0 0) (e mp h a si s inori gin al) . 9 f i r ear m i n vi ol at i on o f 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) , t he go ver nm entm ustpr ove 1 beyo nd a r eas onabl e do ubt( 1) t hatt he def endantw as a c onvi c t ed f el on, ( 2) t hathe po s s e s s e d af i r e ar m , a nd ( 3) t hatt he f i r e ar m ha d t r av e l e d i n a nd a ffe c te d in te r s ta te co m m e r c e . Un i t ed S t ate s v. G u i d ry , 40 6 F . 3 d 31 4 , 31 8 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). S ee 18 U . S. C. A. § 9 22 ( g) ( 1) (W e s t2 00 0) . Ros s s t i pul at e d t o t he f i r s te l e m e nt , a nd t he G o ve r nm e nte s t ab l i s he d t he t hi r d e l e m e ntt hr o ugh t he unc o nt e s t e d t e s t i m o ny o f i t s e xp e r tw i t ne s s f

r o m t he BA TFE . Thus , t he s e c o n d e le m e n t, p o s s e s s io n , w a s th e o n lyd is p u te d e le m e n t a t t r ia l. Pos s e s s i o n c an be e s t ab l i s he d b y ( 1) a c t ual , phy s i c alpo s s e s s i o n o f t he f i rearm , ( 2) sol e contr olan d occup an cy of a pl ace w h ere a f

i rearm i s f

ou n d, or ( 3 ) j o i n to c c u p a n c yo f a p l a c e w h e r e a f

i r e a r m i s f

o u n d , c o mb i n e d w i t h s o me e v id e n c e o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s a c c e s s to a n d k n o w le d g e o f th e fir e a r m . Un i t ed S t ate s v. A n d ers on , 5 5 9 F .3 d 3 4 8 , 3 5 3 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. C t . 2814 ( 200 9) . R oss’ s onl y argu m en ton thi s poi n ti s t h at a r eason able t ri er of fact coul d n otha ve concl u ded beyon d a reason able dou bt t h at he possessed any of t he f i r e ar m s de s c r ibe d i n e i t he rc o unto f hi s i ndi c t m e nt , b e c aus e t he r e w as no phy s i c ale vi de nc e l i nki ng hi m t o t he s e f i r e ar m s . H e a s s e r t s t hatt he o nl y l i nk w as est abli shed by the t est i m on y of hi s c o- conspir ator s. E v e n i f i tw e r e t r u e t h a tt h e o n l ye v i d e n c e l i n k i n gR o s s t o t h e f i r e a r ms Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/23/2010And the recor d in dicates th at this assertion is not true. The police foundthe guns 2 describ ed in the first count of Ross’s indictment hidde n in the trunk of Ross’s car, and at lea st one of th ese guns was in side a locked suitca se, the keyto whichwas foundonRoss’s key rin g. Furthermore , th e proprietor of the military surplu s storetestified that Ross ha d purch a se d sever al acc es soriesf ro m th e store th at weref oun d withth e fire arm s. 10 d e s c r ib e d i n h i s i n d i c t me n twa s t h e t e s t i mo n yo f h i s c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s , we 2 w ou l d n ot be ab l e to fi n d tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt erred byde n yin g h i s m oti on to a cq u i t. O n ce a distri ct cou rt ha s ch a rg ed the j u ryad eq u a tel y w i th resp ect to ac c o m pl i c e t e s t i m o ny, t he j ur y m ayb as e i t s c o nvi c t i o n e nt i r e l y o n t he te s tim o n yo f a c c o m p lic e s . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mend oza , 52 2 F . 3 d 48 2 , 48 9 ( 5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S .C t. 2 6 9 (2 0 0 8 ); Peel v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 316 F. 2d 907, 9 1 1 ( 5 th C i r. 19 6 3 ). W h en rev i ew i n g a distri ct cou rt’ s d en i a lof a m oti on to a c q u it, w e m a k e a ll cr e d ib ilitych o ic e s in fa v o ro f th e ju r yv e r d ic t. D ev ille , 278 F . 3d at 505 . R oss h as not al l eged an y defec ti n t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s j u ry cha rge regardi n g t h e accom pl i ce t est i m on y t h at w as hea rd i n hi s c ase or o t h e r w is e . N o e r r o rh a s b e e n s h o w n in th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d e n ia l o f R o s s ’s m oti on to acq u i t. I V . Sent enci ng G ui del i nes I s s ues R o s s ’ s fo u r th a s s ig n m e n t o f e r r o ris th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly enhanced hi s se nt enc e b y i ncl udi ng f i r ear m s f

ound i n t he s ear c h of t he gar age i n I r vi ng i n i t s c al c ul at i o n o f hi s o f fe ns e l e ve lpur s uantt o t he Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , e ve n t ho ugh he w as no tc har ge d wi t h t he po s s e s s i o n o f t he s e g uns i n e i t he rc o unto f

hi s i ndi c t m e nt . H i s f i f t h a s s i gnm e nto f

e r r o ri s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ti m pr o pe r l y e nhan c e d hi s s e nt e nc e f o url e ve l s und e rt he G ui de l i ne s b as e d o n i t s f i ndi ng t hathe ha d i nt e nde d t o us e t he f i r e ar m s he w a s co n v ic te d o f p o s s e s s in gin co n n e c tio n w ith a n o th e rfe lo n yo ffe n s e . A n d in h is s ix th a s s ig n m e n t o f e r r o r , h e a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly ap pl i ed a tw o- l evelenh an cem en tpu rsuan tt o t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es on Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/23/2010Th e UnitedS tate s S ente ncin gC om mi ssion , Guidelines Man ual , §2K2.1 (Nov. 3 200 8), provides, in relevant part: “§2K2.1. Unlawful Recei pt , Poss essi on, o r Transp ort at ionof

Fi rearms o r Ammuniti on; Pro hibit ed Transact ion s Invo lv ingFi rearms o r Ammuniti on (a) B a seOf

fe n seLevel(

App lyth e Gre ate st): *** (2 ) 24 , if the defen dantcommitted anypart of the instant offen se sub sequ ent to su staining atle ast two felony convictions of either acri me of violence or acontrolled substance offen se; *** (b) Specific Offense Ch aracteri stics (1 ) If the of

fe n seinvolvedthre e ormoref irearm s, increa se a s f ollows: Number of Firear ms Increa se in Level (A ) 3 - 7 a d d 2 (B) 8 - 2 4 a d d 4 .” US SG §2 K2 .1 (em ph a si s inori gin al) . 11 th e g r o u n d th a t h e h a d b e e n a le a d e ro f c r im in a l a c tiv ity . A . St andard of

R evi ew Adi st ri ctcourt ’ s app l i cat i on of t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es i s r evi ew ed d e n o v o , a n d its fin d in g s o f fa c t a r e re v ie w e d fo rcle a re r r o r . Uni t e d S t at e s v. B ru m m ett , 355 F . 3d 343 , 344 ( 5th C i r. 200 3) (per curi am ) . “Adi st ri ctcourt m ay c ons i dernon- adj udi c at ed o f fens es ( of

fens es f orw hi c h t he def

endanthas ne i t he rb e e n c har ge d no rc o nvi c t e d) . . . pr o vi de d t he y c o ns t i t ut e ‘ r e l e va nt con d u ct’u n d er U . S . S . G . § 1B 1 . 3 . ” Id . Adi st ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on of r e le v a n t c o n d u c t is re v ie w e d fo rcle a re r r o r . Id . B . Sent ence E nh ancem entf or Fi r ear m s N otC harge d I n c al c ul at i ng Ros s ’ s o f fe ns e l e ve lund e r§ 2 K 2. 1 o f t he G ui de l i ne s , t he 3 d is tr ic t c o u r t in c lu d e d fiv e fir e a r m s fo u n d in th e g a r a g e in Ir v in gin its ta lly of t h e nu m ber of

f i rearm s t h at had been i n vol ved i n R oss’ s posses si on of fen se, c onc l udi ng t hathe had po ss es se d a t ot alof el eve n f

i r ear m s. Ross ar gues t hat t hi s w as i m pr o pe r , b e c aus e he w as no tc har ge d wi t h po s s e s s i o n o f t he Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/23/2010USSG §1B 1.3 provides, in relevant part: 4 “§1B1.3. RelevantCond uct(F actors that Det ermine the Guid eli ne

Range) (a) C h apt er s Two(Off en seC on duct) an d Thre e (Adj u st me nts). Unle ss oth erwise specified, (I) th e b ase offen se l evel where the guidelinespecifies more than oneba se offe nse level, (ii) specific offe nse characteristic s an d (iii) cross references in Ch apterTwo, an d (iv) adj ustments inC hapter three , shall be det erm inedon the basi s of the follow ing: (1) (A) allacts an d omi ssions committed , ai ded, abette d,

coun seled, comman ded, induced, procured, or willfullyc au se d b yth e defe n dant . . . . *** that occurre d durin g the commissionof the offen se of conviction, in prepar ation for thatoffe nse, or in the cour se of attemptingto avoid detectionor respon sibility for th at of

fe n se. . . . ” US SG §1 B 1 .3 (a)( 1 ) (e mp h a si s inori gin al) . 12 fir e a r m s th a t w e r e fo u n d in Ir v in g . A di s t r i c tc o ur tm ayc o ns i de rno n- adj udi c at e d o f fe ns e s a s “ r e l e va nt cond u ct” un der § 1B 1. 3 of t h e G u i del i n es. B ru m m ett , 3 5 5 F .3 d a t 3 4 4 . 4 R el evan tcondu cti n cl u des of fen ses t h at are pa rtof t h e sam e course of

condu ct o rp a r t o f th e s a m e co m m o n s c h e m e o rp la n a s th e o ffe n s e o f c o n v ic tio n . Id . T w o or m ore of

fen ses are part of

a com m on sc h em e or pl an w h en t h ey are “ subs t ant i al l y c onnec t ed t o e ac h ot herby atl eas tone c om m on fac t or , s uch as com m on vi ct i m s, com m on accom pl i ces, com m on pu rpose, or si m i l ar m o dus o pe r andi . ” U SS G §1 B 1. 3, c om m ent . (n. 9(A) ) . “ O f fens es t hatdo notqual i f y as p a r to f a c o mmo n s c h e me o rp l a n ma yn o n e t h e l e s s q u a l i f ya s p a r to f

t h e s a me c our se of

c onducti f

t hey ar e s uf

f i c i ent l y c onnec t ed o rr el at ed t o e ac h ot heras t o w arran tt h e concl u si on t h at t h ey are part of a si n gl e epi sode, spree, or o n g o in gs e r ie s o f o ffe n s e s .” U S S G § 1 B 1 .3 , co m m e n t. (n .9 (B )). I n Un itedS ta tes v. B ru m m ett , w e de t er m i ned t hata di st r i c tc our thad noter r ed i n ca l c ul at i ng a de fendant ’ s of fens e l eve lf

ort he o f

fens e o f be i ng a Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/23/201013

fel on i n possess i on of a f i rearm w h ere i tha d coun t ed f i rearm s he h ad not b e e n in d ic te d fo rp o s s e s s in g . B ru m m ett , 355 F . 3d at 344 –45 . Th e di st ri ct c o ur ti nc l ude d f

i r e ar m s t hatha d b e e n di s c o ve r e d i n t he ni ne m o nt hs f o l l o w i ng t he po s s e s s i o n f o rw hi c h t he de fe nda ntw as i ndi c t e d a s r e l e va nt c o n d u c t in its ca lc u la tio n o f h is s e n te n c e . Id . at 34 4 . W e h eld th a t, de sp i te t h e am ou n tof

t i m e t h at had el ap sed betw een t h e of fen ses, t h ey w ere partof th e s a m e o n g o in gs e r ie s o f o ffe n s e s a n d th u s w e r e re le v a n t c o n d u c t. Id . at 3 4 5 . The am o unto f t i m e t hate l ap s e d b e t w e e n t he di s c o ve r y o f t he l as to f

t he f i r e ar m s w hi c h Ros s w as i ndi c t e d f o rpo s s e s s i ng andt he di s c o ve r y o f t he fi rea rm s i n Irvingw a s a sin gle d a y. R oss con ced es th a t B ru m m ettco n tr o ls t he o ut c om e o f

t hi s i ss ue i f

i ti s st i l lgo od l aw . H ow eve r , he ar gues t hat B ru m m ettw as a br o ga t e d b y t he Supr e m e Cour ti n B lak el y v. W ash i ngt on , 12 4 S. Ct . 2 53 1 ( 20 04 ) , a nd A pp rend iv. New Jersey , 1 2 0 S .C t. 2 3 4 8 (20 0 0 ). I n B la k ely , t h e C o u r th e ld th a ta s t a t e c o u r th a d v io la t e da d e fe n d a n t ’s S i xth A m en dm en tri gh t s by dep art i n g f rom t h e m axim u m sentence p r e s c r ib e d b ya s t a t e s e n t e n c in gr e g im e a n d e n h a n c in gth e d e fe n d a n t ’s sentence based on fact s t o w h i ch h e ha d n otpl ead ed gu i l t y an d w h i ch h ad not been f ou n d bya j u ry. 124 S . C t . at 253 6 ( “ O t h er t h an t h e factof a pri or c o nvi c t i o n, a ny fac tt hati nc r e as e s t he pe nal t y f o ra c r i m e b e yo nd t he prescr ibed st atutor y m axim u m m u stbe subm i t t ed to a j u ry, an d p roved beyo nd a r eas onabl e do ubt . ” ( quot i ng Appr e ndi , 1 2 0 S . Ct . a t2 3 6 2

– 6 3 ) ) . At t h e t i m e B la k ely w as de c i de d, t he r e w as s o m e c o nc e r n t hati tw o ul d p r e ve nt j u dg es f rom app l yi n g en h an cem en t s un der t h e federalSen t en ci n g G u i del i n es, s i nc e t he G ui de l i ne s , l i ke t he s t at e s e nt e nc i ng r e gi m e r e vi e w e d i n B la k ely , w e r e m a n d a to r y . S ee 1 2 4 S .C t. a t 2 5 3 8 n .9 . S ee a lso id . at2548–5 0 Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/23/2010Section2K2 .1 provides, in relevant part: 5 “§2K2.1. Unlawful Recei pt , Poss essi on, o r Transp ort at ionof

Fi rearms o r Ammuniti on; Pro hibit ed Transact ion s Invo lv ingFi rearms o r Ammuniti on * ** (b) Specific Offense Ch aracteri stics *** (6) If the defen dantu sed orpossessed anyfirearm or ammunitio n in connection with anotherfelonyoffe nse; or p ossessed or transferre d any firearm or ammunitio n with knowledge, intent, orrea son to b elieve th at it would be used or p ossessed in connection with another fel ony off

ens e, inc reas e by 4levels. If the resulting offen se i s le ss than level 18 , increa se tolevel 18 .” US SG §2 K2 .1 (b)( 6) (e mp h a si s inori gin al) . 14 (O ’ C o n n o r , J ., d is s e n tin g). H o w e v e r , th e C o u r t’s s u b s e q u e n t d e c is io n in Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 200 5) , w h i ch h el d that t h e G u i del i n es w er e no tm andat or y, pr ovi ded gr ounds f ordi st i ngui shi ng B la k ely . S ee Un i t ed S ta tes v. R ita , 1 27 S. Ct . 2 45 6, 2 46 5– 67 ( 20 07 ) . I n 2 00 7, i n R ita , t h e C ou rt con fi rm ed tha t B la k ely a nd Appr e ndidi d n otpreven tdi st ri ctcourt s f rom e n h a n c in gs e n te n c e s u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s . R ita , 1 2 7 S .C t. a t 2 4 6 5

– 6 6 . T h e r e fo r e , B ru m m ettrem ai n s good l aw , an d the di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot e r rb yin c lu d in gth e fi r e a r m s fo u n d in I r v in gin it s c a lc u la t io n o f R o s s ’s o ffe n s e le v e l u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s . S ee R ita , 127 S. C t . at2465–6 6; B ru m m ett , 355 F. 3d at345. C . S e n te n c e E n h a n c e m e n t fo r U s in gth e F ir e a r m s to C o m m it A n o th er F elon y O f f en se R o s s ’ s fifth a s s ig n m e n t o f e r r o ris th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly e nhan c e d hi s s e nt e nc e f o url e ve l s und e r§ 2 K 2. 1(b) ( 6) o f t he Se nt e nc i ng 5 G ui de l i ne s b as e d o n i t s f i ndi ng t hathe ha d i nt e nde d t o us e t he f i r e ar m s he w a s ch a r g e d w ith p o s s e s s in gin co n n e c tio n w ith a n o th e rfe lo n yo ffe n s e . Spe c i f i c al l y, he a r gue s t hatt he g o ve r nm e ntdi d no ti nt r o duc e s uf f i c i e nt Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/23/2010An earlier portion of the recordingreveal s that Ross ha d co nfuse d his SKS riflefor 6 anAK-4 7 , du e toth e si milar app earanceof the twowe apo n s:

“ROSS: Damn. (In audible) But the bitch – the drum [maga zine] ain’t fittin g on the bitch. So now I ’m starting to wonder, is the b itchanAK or a SK. * ** AUTR EY: Youwant meto b rin gmyAK? ROSS: Yeah , Iwant – Ij ust want to se e if th e drum [ma ga zine] will fit yours . AUTREY: Ok ay. ROSS: Bec auseif the drum will fit yours and don’t fitmine, th at tell s me mine i s anSK, not an AK. Bec ausea lot of the configuration s arethe same, b ut the loa d magazineis differe nt.” 15 evi den ce t h at he i n t en ded t o com m i tan ot h er f el on y of fen se f or t h e di st ri ct c o u r t t o m a k e th is fin d in ga n d e n h a n c e h is s e n te n c e . The di s t r i c tc o ur tne e d o nl y f i nd fac t s r e l e va ntt o i t s a ppl i c at i o n o f t he S e n te n c in gG u id e lin e s b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . Uni t e d S t at e s v. L ew is , 4 76 F. 3d3 69 , 3 89 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7) . The f i ndi ngs o f

fac tm ad e b y t he d is tr ic t c o u r t a t s e n te n c in ga r e re v ie w e d fo rcle a re r r o r . B ru m m ett , 355 F. 3d at3 44 . The r e c o r d c o nt ai ns o ve r w he l m i ng e vi de nc e t hatRos s w as pl anni ng t o us e t he f

i r e ar m s he w as c o nvi c t e d o f po s s e s s i ng t o c o m m i ta no t he rfe l o ny o ffe n s e . In a d d itio n to th e p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e re c o v e r e d a t t h e s c e n e o f h is a r r e s tth a ts u g g e s t e d h e w a s p r e p a r in gto c o m m ita h o m e in v a s io n , A u t r e y ’s t ap e r e c o r di ng o f

Ros s pl anni ng t he r o bb e r y r e c o r de d Ro s s s t at i ng t hathe pl anne d t o b r i ng hi s SK S:

“ R O S S : Y ou be t h ere at8: 30. I pi ck y’ al lup at 8: 35, t h en w e g o i ng t o r i de t hr o ugh a nd g e ti n po s i t i o n. A U TR E Y : O kay. A U T R E Y : Y ea h . W a i t. S o w e g oin g –yo u – y ou go i n g to br i ng yourA K , yo u notgo i ng t o b r i ng your– 6 R O S S : Y ea h , I bringi t. ” A c c o r d in g ly , w e fin d th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d a m p le e v id e n c e u p o n w h ic h it b a s e d its e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r§ 2 K 2 .1 (b )(6 ) o f th e G u id e lin e s . Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/23/2010Section3B 1.1 provides, in relevant part: 7 “§ 3B 1. 1. Aggr avatingRole

B a se d onth e defe n dant’ s role inth e of fe n se , increa seth e of

fe n se levela s f

ollows: * ** (c) If the defen dantwas an organi zer , le ader, mana ger, or supervisor in anycri minal activityother thandescribed in (a) or (b ), increa seby 2 l evel s.” US SG §3 B 1 .1 (c) (e mp h a si s inori gin al) . 16 D . En han ce m entf or Taki ng a Leaders hi p R ol e i n an U ncharge d O f f en se R o s s ’ s s ix th a s s ig n m e n t o f e r r o ris th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly ap pl i e d at w o - l e ve le nhan c e m e ntpur s uantt o § 3 B1. 1 o f t he Se nt e nc i ng 7 G u i del i n es on t h e groun d that he h ad been a l ead er of cr i m i n alact ivi t y. R oss argu es t h at i tw as i m proper f or t h e di st ri ctcourtt o enh an ce hi s s en t en ce f or a s s u m in ga le a d e r s h ip ro le in th e p la n n e d ro b b e r y , b e c a u s e h e w a s u ltim a te ly c har ge d wi t h b e i ng a fe l o n i n po s s e s s i o n, no tf o ra ny o f

fe ns e i nvo lvi ng t he p la n n in go f th e ro b b e r y . H e th e n a r g u e s th a t, e v e n if it m ig h t b e p e r m is s ib le t o enh an ce a defen da n t ’ s s en t en ce based on a l ead ershi p rol e i n an un cha rged o ffe n s e , th e r e w a s in s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e fo rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t t o d o s o in h is ca se. B oth of th ese arg u m en ts l a ck m erit. Th e “ I nt r oduc t or y Com m ent ar y” t o § 3B 1. 1 m akes i tc l eart hat le a d e r s h ip r o le s in u n c h a r g e d o ffe n s e s m a yb e u s e d to e n h a n c e a d e fe n d a n t ’s sentence:

“ T h i s Pa rtprovi des adj u st m en t s t o t h e of fen se l evelbased u p o n th e ro le th e d e fe n d a n t p la y e d in co m m itt in gth e o ffe n s e . Th e de t er m i nat i on o f a de fendant ’ s r ol e i n t he o f fens e i s t o b e m a d e o n th e b a s is o f a ll co n d u c t w ith in th e s c o p e o f § 1 B 1 .3 (R eleva n t C on d u ct) . . . an d n ot solel y o n the ba sis of el em en ts an d acts ci t ed i n t h e coun tof convi ct i on . ” U S S G C h . 3, P t . B , i n t ro. c o m m e n t (e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l). R el evan tcondu cti n cl u des of fen ses t h at are pa rtof t h e sam e course of

condu ct Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 16 Date Filed: 02/23/201017

o rp a r t o f th e s a m e co m m o n s c h e m e o rp la n a s th e o ffe n s e o f c o n v ic tio n . B ru m m ett , 355 F . 3d at 344 . Tw o or m ore of fen ses are part of

a com m on sc hem e o rpl an w hen t hey ar e “ subs t ant i al l y c onnec t ed t o e ac h ot herby at l east on e com m on fact or, such a s c om m on vi ct i m s, com m on accom pl i ces, com m on pu rpose, or si m i l ar m o dus o pe r andi . ” U S S G §1 B 1 . 3 , com m en t. ( n. 9(A) ) . Ros s ’ s po s s e s s i o n o f f i r e ar m s w as s ubs t ant i al l y c o nne c t e d t o t he pl an n ed h om e i n vasi on , becau se t h e t w o of fen ses sha red a com m on pu rpose, t o rob t h e hom e’ s oc cup an t s of t h ei r val u ables . T h u s, t h e pl an n ed robbery w a s r e le v a n tc o n d u c t , a n d th e d is t r ic tc o u r td id n o te r rb ye n h a n c in gR o s s ’s sen ten ce for h i s l ea d ersh i p role i n i t. R oss’ s c on t en t i on t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtl acked suf f i ci en tevi den ce upon w h i ch i tcoul d concl u de that R oss w as a l ead er of t h e pl an n ed robbery i s al so w i th ou t m erit. W h eth er orn ot a d efen d a n t w a s a lea d er of cri m i n a lactivi ty is a fa c t fin d in g , w h ic h w e re v ie w fo rcle a re r r o r . B ru m m ett , 3 5 5 F .3 d a t 3 4 4 . The di s t r i c tc o ur tm us tf i nd fac t s r e l e va ntt o i t s a ppl i c at i o n o f t he Se nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . L ew is , 4 76 F. 3da t3 89 . The t r ansc r i ptof

t he r ec or ded c onver sa t i on be t w ee n A ut r ey and R os s t hatw as pl ayed att r i alpr ovi ded am pl e e vi denc e upon w hi c h t he c our tc oul d f i nd t hat R o s s w a s a le a d e ro f th e p la n n e d ro b b e r y . T h e r e fo r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id no te r rb y e nhan c i ng Ros s ’ s s e nt e nc e b as e d o n i t s f i ndi ng t hathe ha d b e e n a l eade ri n t he pl anned r obbe r y. V . C h al l en ge to t h e W arran t l ess Sea rch an d S ei zure R o s s ’ s s e v e n th a s s ig n m e n t o f e r r o ris th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly den i ed h i s m ot i on t o sup press t h e evi den t i ary f rui t s of t h e searc h an d sei zure o f hi s v e hi c l e . H e f

i l e d t hi s m o t i o n pro seat sentenci n g, an d i tw as deem ed u n ti m ely b y th e d i stri ct cou rt. Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 17 Date Filed: 02/23/2010Rule12provi des, inrelevantpart: 8 “ Rul e 12. Pl ead ings and Mot ion s * ** (b) Pretri alMoti ons . (3 ) Motion s That Mus t BeMade B ef oreTrial. The following must b e raised before trial :

*** (C) a motionto suppress evidence; *** (c) Mot i o n Dead l i ne . The court may , atthe arrai gn ment or a s soon afterward a s practicable , set a de adline for the parties tomake pretri al mo tio ns andmay alsosche dulea motio n hearing. * ** (e) Wa iver of aDefense, Obj ect ion , or Request. A partywaives any Rule 12(b)(3) defense, obj ection, or re que st not raised bythe de adline the court sets under Rule12 (c) orbyany extension the court provi des. Forgood cau se , the courtmaygrant relief f ro m th e waiver .” FedR . C ri m. P . 1 2(We st2 0 0 8) (e mp h a si s inori gin al) . 18 A . St andard of

R evi ew In revi ew i n g a dis t ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof a m ot i on t o sup press, w e revi ew its fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo rcle a re r r o ra n d its co n c lu s io n s o f la w d e n o v o . Un i t ed St at e s v . Fi e l ds , 7 2 F .3d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 1 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). B . W arran t l ess Sea rch an d S ei zure R u l e 12 of

t h e F ederalR u l es of C ri m i n alP rocedure requ i res a 8 d e fe nd a ntt o m o v e t o s up p r e s s e v i d e nc e b e f o r e t r i a l . Fe d . R. Cr i m . P. 12 (b) ( 3) ( C) . A de fe nda ntw ho fai l s t o a dhe r e t o t hi s r e qui r e m e ntw aive s t he is s u e . F e d . R . C r im . P . 1 2 (e ). S ee als o Un itedS ta tes v. Ch a v es -V a len cia , 116 F. 3d 127, 129 ( 5t h C i r . 1997) ( “ [ T] he fai l ure t o r ai se a s uppres si on i ss ue at t ri alf orecl oses a defend an tf rom rai si n g t h e i ssue f or t h e f i rstt i m e on ap pe al . ” ) . Ros s a dm i t s t hathi s s upp r e s s i o n i s s ue i s f o r e c l o s e d b y l aw, b ut assert s t h at he presents h i s argum en ton the i ssue an yw ay to pres erve i tf or “F U T U R E R E V IE W . ” Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 18 Date Filed: 02/23/2010The Government argu es th at the searchwas not an inventory search , but was 9 inste ad asearch pursuant to the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amen dment warrant re quirem ent. Seegeneral ly , United States v. Fields , 45 6 F .3d 5 19, 523(5th Cir. 2 006) (“The auto mobile exce ption allow s po liceto search a vehicleif they have probable causeto believe that the vehicle cont ain s contrab and.”). Weneed not reach this argument, a s we find that Ros s’ s argu me nt wa s w aivedan d isin a de qu atelyb rief ed . There was nosuppressionh earingas such, butthis apparentlyrefers to testimony 10 at se ntencing. 19 F r a n k ly , w e a r e u n a b le to d e te r m in e w h a t e x a c tlyR o s s th in k s h e is preservi n g. H e begi n s hi s di scussi on of t h i s i ssue by stat i n g t h at t h e searc h i n w h i c h t h e w e a p o n s w e r e f o u n d w a s a n i n v e n t o r ys e a r c h o f h i s v e h i c l e . H e 9 t he n s t at e s t hata pr o pe r l y pe r f o r m e d i nve nt o r y s e ar c h i s a n e xc e pt i o n t o t he g e n e r a lr u l e t h a ta l ls e a r c h e s mu s tb e p e r f o r me d p u r s u a n tt o a w a r r a n t . H e says t h at i n ven t ory searc h es are proper w h en l aw enfor cem en tof f i cers f ol l ow a s t and ar d p r o c e dur e . One woul d t he n e xp e c thi m t o a r gue t hatt he pa rt i cul ar searc h t h at di scovered t h e f i rearm s i n R oss’ s vehi cl e di d n otf ol l ow a s t and ar d p r o c e dur e . Buthe do e s no tdo t hi s . I ns t e ad , he c o nc l ude s t he di sc uss i on o f

t hi s i ss ue by st at i ng t hat , “ [ d] uri ng t he s uppres si on hear i ng, 10 t h ere w as t est i m on y t h at t h e searc h w as cond u ct ed p u rsuan tt o t h e pol i ci es of t he D e nt o n Count y She r i f f ’ s D e pa r t m e nt. . . . I tc anno tb e s ai d t hatt he i n ven t ory searc h w as un reasona bl e du e t o l aw enfor cem en t ’ s fai l u re t o f ol l ow s ta n d a r d p r o c e d u r e s in co n d u c tin gth e in v e n to r y .” T h is is th e e n d o f h is d is c u s s io n o f th is is s u e . T h u s , h is o w n b r ie f fa ils to id e n tify a s in g le a r g u m e n t u p o n w h ic h h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s co u ld h a v e b e e n g r a n te d if it h a d b e e n ra is e d tim e ly . G iven t hatR os s’ s suppr es si on ar gum ent s w er e w aived, and given t hat even i f t h ey h ad not been w ai ved , hi s bri ef i n g on t h em i s enti rel y i n ad equ ate, w e h o ld th a t R o s s h a s e s ta b lis h e d n o g r o u n d fo rre v e r s a l in th is co n n e c tio n . Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 19 Date Filed: 02/23/201020 CO NC L US I ON Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , t he j udg m e nto f t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti s a f f i r m e d. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-40278 Document: 00511033627 Page: 20 Date Filed: 02/23/2010