F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 1, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1491 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-20709 -CR- CMA UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JI MM Y LEE FRANKLIN, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 1, 200 8) Be fo re MA RC U S, W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Jim m y L ee F rankl in a

ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ionf

or be ing af el on i n po sse ssi on of af ir earm and am m uni tio n. S ee 18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). T he iss ue pr es en te d is2

w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it de nie d F rankl in’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s a sem i-autom atic rifle found un der a bed in his apartm ent. B ecause the district court did not c le ar ly e rr w he n it de te rm ine d th at

the gunw as dis co ve re d duri ng the p r o t e c t i v e s w e e p o f

th e ap art me n t , w e a f

f i rm. I. BACKG ROUND A ft er af ed er al gr an d j ur

y ind ic te d F rankl in f

or be ing af el on i n po sse ssi on of af ir earm , a m

m uni tio n, and b ody

arm or , F rankl in m ove d to sup pr es s a ll the ev ide nc e on the gr ound s th at of fi ce rs c oe rc ed

his gir lf ri en d to c onse nt t o th e search. T he governm ent initiallyargued that, a lthou gh no evidence w as dis co ve re d duri ng a

pr ote ct ive sw ee p of

the apartm en t, F rankl in’ s gi rl fr ie nd vol unt ar ily

c onse nte d to the se ar ch , in w hic h th e of fi ce rs f ound ase m i- au tom at ic ri fl e, a m m uni tio n, and b ody

arm or . T he day

be fo re the sup pr es sio n he ar ing , the governm ent presented a diffe rent version of events and inform ed the court that

“ [a ] r if le w as obs er

ve d un de r a be d duri ng the pr ote ct ive sw ee p, but w as not seized at that tim e. ” A t the sup pr es sio n he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt he ar d te sti m ony r eg ar din g w he n th e ri fl e w as dis co ve re d. A ge nt J ohn L eahy of the Bure auof

A lc ohol , Tob acco , Fire arm s an d Ex pl os iv es was t he pri m ary wit ne ss forth e g ov ern m en t. A lth oughA ge nt L eahy ’ s r ep ort, w ri tte n di re ct ly a ft er the se ar ch , state d th at

the3

rif le was fo un d a fte r th e g irl fri en d c on se nt ed , Agen t Lea hy tes ti fie d t ha t DEA Agent Chuck Noonan inform ed Agent L eahy that he discovered a rifle under a bed du rin g t he pro te ct iv e swe ep , bef or e th e ag en ts ga in edth e g irl fri en d’s co ns en t. A ge nt M ile s Wri ght

of the F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of L awE nf or ce m en t a lso te sti fi ed that duri ng the pr ote ct ive sw ee p, he he ar d an a ge nt s tate that the re w as a

“ lon g f ir earm ” loc at ed

in the be dr oom . L ike A ge nt L eahy ’ s r ep ort, A ge nt Wright’ s report did not con tain this in form ation, but Agent Wright testified that A ge nt L eahy

w ro te the r ep ort and A ge nt W ri ght sim ply sig ne d it . A ge nt N oonan, the of fi ce r w ho a lle ge dly

dis co ve re d th e w ea

pon dur ing the pr ote ct ive sw ee p, did no t t es ti fy

at t he supp res si on he ari ng . A ft er the c ourt he ar d th e te sti m ony pr es en te d by

F rankl in and the go ve rn m en t, t he co ur t al lo wedeach si de to arg ue th ei r res pe ct iv e p os it io ns . During the governm ent’ s presentation, the governm ent refe renced the grand jury te sti m ony of A T F A ge nt J de an e W ils on. A lth oughshe w as not a t the apartm en t during th e sear ch, A gent W ilson testified before the grand jury that the rifle w as fo u n ddu ri n g th e p ro t ec t i v e s we ep . Th e d i s tri ctco u rtad m i t t edAg en tWil s o n ’s gr an d j ur y te sti m ony , ove r Fr an kli n’ s ob j ec tio n, be ca

use it w as “ hig hly

ge rm an e to

. . . the de te rm inatio n of

w he the r or

not the re ha s be enr ec en t f

ab ri catio n” that the ri fl e w as f

ound dur ing the pr ote ct ive sw ee p. A ft er the he ar ing , F rankl in4

supp le m en te d th e fa ct

ua l r ec or d w ithan e ar lie r portio n of A ge nt W ils on’ s gr an d j ur y te sti m ony

w he re A ge nt W ils on w as a ske d if the a ge nt s aw“ the r if

le w he n he observed it un der the bed?” and Agent W ilson ’ s responded “ [n] ot initi ally .” In a written order, the district court determ ined that the cons ent to search wa s coerce d and sup pressed all the evidence except the rif le. The district court fo und the gir lf

ri en d’ s “ te sti m ony

c re dib le on the c ri tic al iss ue s th at be ar upo n volu ntariness” and “ her re countin g of the events . . . far m ore cr edible than that offer ed by

the agents.” Notw ithstand ing th is credibility assessm ent, the district court found th at the rifle wa s discov ered during the protective sweep and denied the m oti on t o su

ppr es s th e ri fl e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt “ w as c er ta inl y ini tia lly skeptical” that the rifle w as discovered during the swee p because of the “ total ab se nc e” of

thi s in fo rm at ionin the inv es tig at ive r ep orts, the state m en ts i n th e reports that the rifle w as found after the c onsent s earc h, and the “ radical c hange” in th e g ov ern m en t’s p os it io n t he da y be fo re t he supp res si on he ari ng . T w o f ind ing s “ til t[ ed ] the ba lanc e in f av or of the [ g] ove rn m en t. ” F ir st, be ca use apr ote ct ive sw ee p in vol ve s ac ur sor y w al k- thr oughand v isu al ins pe ct ion of the apartm ent for the offic ers’ and other occupants’ sa fety , the c ourt stated that

“ [i ] t be lie s c om

m on s en se to as sum e” that the of fi ce r w ho s w ep t the be dr oom

“ w oul d no t l ook unde rn eath the be d to c he ck ” fo r a hid ing pe rs on, and tha t a larg e5

obj ec t l ike ar if

le w oul d be “ hard

to m iss w he n c he ck ing und er be ds. ” S ec ond, be ca use A ge nt W ils on’ s gr an d j ur y te sti m ony

that a r if le w as f ound dur ing the initial sweep w as given before the m otion to supp ress and before the initial re pr es en tatio n of

the gov er

nm en t tha t no thi ng w as dis co ve re d duri ng the p ro t ec t i v e s we ep , “ th e t es t i m o n y, co m b i n edwi th th e p ro s ec u t o r’s acknowledgm ent of err or . . . is high ly probative of when the rif le w as d i s co v er ed .” Th e d i s tri ctco u rtn o t edth e c o n tra d i ct i o ni nAg en tWil s o n ’s te sti m ony , but

did not dis cu ss this f

ac t. T he c ourt the n de nie d th at m oti on t o supp re ss a s to the r if

le , but gr an te d th e m oti on a s to a ll oth er it em s se iz ed . Fr an kli n pl ea de d gu ilty

to be ing af

el on i n po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m and am m uni tio n and r es er

ve d hi s r igh t t o a

ppe al the part ia l de nia l of his m oti on t o supp re ss. T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed him to the m an da tor

y te rm of 180 m onths, an d t hi s ap pe al fol lo wed . II. ST AN DA RD OF RE VIEW

“ Adis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng o n am oti on t o su

ppr es s pr es en ts a

m ixe d qu es tio n of lawand f

ac t. ” U nit ed

S tate s v. P er ez , 443 F . 3d 7 72, 774 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) (c itatio n om itt ed ). W e ac ce pt the f ac tua l f ind ing s of

the dis tr ic t c ourt a s tr

ue unl es s th ose f

ind ing s are c le ar ly

e rr one ous. Unit ed

S tate s v. Z ap at a, 180 F . 3d 12 37 , 12 40 -4 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . In o urev al ua ti on of t he fact s, we “ de fer t o t he . .6

. dete rm ination [of the district court] unless [its] understanding of the facts appears to b e ‘ unbe lie vable . ’ ” U nit ed S tate s v. Ram ir ez -C hil el , 289 F . 3d 7 44, 749 ( 11th Ci r. 200 2) ( ci tatio n om itt ed ). A ll fa ct s are c onstru ed in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the pr ev ai lin g party

be low . U nit ed

S tate s v. Be rv al di, 226 F . 3d 1 256, 126 2 ( 11th Ci r. 20 00 ). III. D ISCU SSION Fr an kli n di sput es the f

ind ing of the dis tr ic t c ourt r eg ar din g th e tim ing of the dis co ve ry of the r if le . F rankl in d oe s no t di sput e that a r if le w as f ound und er his be d. F rankl in c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly e rr ed w he n it f ound that the rifle w as discovered during the protective swee p. W e disagree. T he f ac tua l f ind ing by the dis tr ic t c ourt i s no t “unbe lie vable , ” as it m ust be fo r th is Co ur t t o o ve rtu rn th e fi nd in g o n app eal . Ram ire z-Ch il el , 28 9 F .3dat 7 49 . The district court had plenty of evidence before it to determ ine that the rifle w as fo und dur ing the pr ote ct ive sw ee p. F ir st, the c ourt dr ewon i ts c om m on s en se regarding a protective sw eep and the preca ution s that officers take when conductin g a protective swe ep. A large gun, such as the sem i-autom atic rifle , ce rt ai nly w oul d be se enw he n an of fi ce r loo ke d un de r a be d f or F rankl in o r an oth er hid ing pe rs on. S ec ond, the c ourt c onsi de re d th e gr an d j ur y te sti m ony

of O ff ic er W ils on. T his e vid en ce w as pr ope rl y c onsi de re d be ca

use “ [a ] t a7

supp ression hearing, the court m ay rely on hearsay

and other evidence, e ven thou gh that evid ence w ouldnot be adm issib le at trial. ” United States v. Ra ddaz, 44 7 U.S. 6 67 , 67 9, 1 00 S. Ct. 2 04 6, 2 41 4 (1 98 0) . A lth oughshe w as not

pr es en t duri ng the pr ote ct ive sw ee p, O ff ic er W ils on testified m onth s before F ranklin’ s m otion to supp ress that the rifle wa s seen dur ing the pr ote ct ive sw ee p. T his gr an d j ur y te sti m ony

sub stanti al ly

bol ste rs the te sti m ony of A ge nts L eahy

and Wri ght , w ho w er e pr es en t duri ng the sw ee p and search, that the rifle w as seen during the protective sweep. T hat there is another w ay to int er pr et the e vid en ce be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt i s of no r ec our se f

or Fr an kli n. “ If

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a cc ount of the e vid en ce is pla

usi ble in lig ht o f the re co rd vie w ed in its e nti re ty , the c ourt of appe al s m ay

not r ev er se it e ve n th ough co nvi nc ed

that ha d it

be ensittin g a s th e tr ie r of f ac t, it w oul d have w ei ghe d th e ev ide nc e dif

fe re ntl y . ” A nde rs on v . Ci ty of Be sse m er

Ci ty , N . C. , 470 U . S. 564 , 57 3- 74 , 10 5 S . Ct. 1 50 4 (1 98 5) . IV. C ONC LUS ION Be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr w he n it de te rm ine d th at

the gun w as f ound dur ing the pr ote ct ive sw ee p, F rankl in’ s c onvi ct ionis AF FIRMED .