FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 19 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10124 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -001 32 -C R -1-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G O D W I N U M O L E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 19, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G od w i n U m ol e app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on and 2 4-m on th sent ence i m po se d aft er he e nt e r e d a c ondi t i ona l pl e a of gui l ty , pur s ua ntt o w r i tt e n a gr e e m e nt , f orone2

c ountof c r e di tc a r d f

r a ud i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1029( a ) ( 2) . O n appe a l , he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y ( 1) denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o sup pres s e vi dence s e i z e d pur s ua ntt o a s e a r c h w a r r a ntw i thouthol di ng a n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng, a nd (2) s ent enci ng hi m i n v i ol at i on of hi s S i xt h A m endm entri gh tt o a j ury und er m andat ory s ent enci ng gu i del i nes i n l i gh tof U ni t ed St at es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ). I . B AC KG RO UN D I n M a y 2 0 0 2 , th e P o s ta l I n s p e c tio n S e r v ic e r e c e iv e d in f o r m a tio n th a t a m a il d r o p a d d r e s s in L a w r e n c e v ille , G e o r g ia w a s r e c e iv in g m a il c o n s is tin g o f c r e d it ca rd appl i ca t i on s, cr edi tca rds, and checks i n v ar i ou s nam es . B as ed up on further i n v est i g at i o n , P o st al In sp ect o rs d i sco v ered th atU m o l e, u si n g a n u m b er o f al i ases, h a d r e n te d m u ltip le ap a r tm e n ts a n d m a il d r o p s f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

r e c e iv in g c r e d it card ap p l i cat i o n s, cred i tcard s, an d ch eck s. W hen t he P ost al Inspec t ors det erm i ned t he address of U m ol e’ s a ctual r e s id e n c e , th e y a r r e s te d h im o n th e b a s is o f a f e d e r a l c o m p la in t a n d a r r e s t w a r r a n t. P ri or t o t he arre st , P ost al Inspec t or C arm en R ee se subm i tt ed an appl i ca t i on for a se ar ch w arra ntt o a S up er i or C ou rtJudg e i n G w i nn ettC ou nt y, G eorgi a. In her a f f i da vi ts uppor t i ng the appl i c a t i on f orthe w a r r a nt , U m ol e c l a i m s tha tI ns pe c t or R e e s e s w or e unde roa th tha ts he w a s “ a dul y s w or n, c e r t i f i e d l a w e nf

or c e m e nt3

of f i c e rc ha r ge d w i th the duty t o i nve s t i ga t e c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty a nd e nf or c e the c r im in a l la w s o f

th e s ta te .” U m ol e m ove d t o s uppr e s s the f rui t s of tha ts e a r c h, c ont e ndi ng tha tI ns pe c t or R ee se m ade afa l se st at em entdel i bera t el y or r ec kl es sl y. A ft erthe di stri ctcourt de ni e d hi s m ot i on, U m ol e pl e d gui l ty t o one c ountof c r e di tc a r d f

r aud i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 02 9(a) (2). I I . STA N D A R D S O F R EVI EW W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t o n a m o tio n to s u p p r e s s o n ly f o rc le a re r r o r , s e e U

ni t e d Stat e s v . J

ac k s on , 12 0 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 28 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ), bu tre vi ew fa i l ure t o g ra ntan evi dent i ary hea ri ng on a m ot i on t o sup pres s f or an a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . U

ni t ed St at es v. C oo

per , 20 3 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 85 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). W h e r e , a s h e r e , a d e f e n d a n t p r e s e r v e s a c o n s titu tio n a l o b je c tio n to h is se nt ence , w e r evi ew hi s s ent ence de no vo , a nd w i l l va c a t e a nd r e m a nd onl y f or h a r m f u l e r r o r . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . P az , 405 F . 3d 946, 948 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ T o f i nd ha r m l e s s e r r or , [ thi s C our t ] m us tde t e r m i ne tha tthe e r r ordi d nota f f e c tthe subst ant i al ri gh t s of the part i es . ” U ni t ed St at es v. H

erna nd ez , 160 F . 3d 661, 670 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . T he gove r nm e ntbe a r s the bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng the a bs e nc e of p rej u d i ce t o th e d efen d an t ’ s su b st an t i al ri g h t s.4 I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A. M o ti o n to S u p p ress U m ol e a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n fai l i ng t o g ra nthi m an evi dent i ary hea ri ng re gardi ng the verac i ty of the af fi davi tup on w hi ch the se ar ch w a r r a ntw a s ba s e d. I n Fra n ks v. D ela w a re , the S up re m e C ou rtes t abl i shed w hen a cri m i nal d e f e n d a n t is e n title d to a n s u c h a h e a r in g . 4 3 8 U .S . 1 5 4 , 9 8 S . C t. 2 6 7 4 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . F ir s t, th e a f

f id a v it s u p p o r tin g th e w a r r a n t is p r e s u m e d to b e v a lid . I d . a t171 . T he c ha l l e nge rm us ta l l e ge de l i be r a t e f a l s e hood orr e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d f ortruth a nd s uppor tthe s e a l l e ga t i ons w i th pr oof , poi nt i ng s pe c i f

i c a l l y t o the por t i ons of

the a f f id a v it c la im e d to b e f

a ls e . I d. In ad d i t i o n , th e C o u rtst at ed , “ F i n al l y, i f th ese r e q u ir e m e n ts a r e m e t, a n d if , w h e n m a te r ia l th a t is th e s u b je c t o f th e a lle g e d f

a ls ity orr e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d i s s e tt o one s i de , the r e r e m a i ns s uf f i c i e ntc ont e nti n the w a r r a n t a f

f id a v it to s u p p o r t a f

in d in g o f p r o b a b le c a u s e , n o h e a r in g is r e q u ir e d .” I d. a t171- 72. T hi s C our t , i n U

ni t e d Stat e s v . N

ov aton , 27 1 F . 3d 96 8 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ), el aborat ed on the show i ng re qu i re d t o o bt ai n a Franks hear i ng . W e i nferre d t hat th e d efen d an tal so b ears th e b u rd en o f sh o w i n g th at , “ ab sen tth o se m i sr epre se nt at i on s or om i ss i on s, prob abl e c ause w ou l d h ave been l ac ki ng . ” I d. atW en o t eth atth equ e s t i o no f wh e th e r s e e ki n gan d

e x e c ut i n ga

s e arc hw ar

ranti s s u e d

b y a 1 state judicial off

icer violates state law is immaterial to the question beforeus. When a federal of fi c e r s e e ks a

wa rrant in a fe deral inve sti g atio n, weme a suretheme ans us e d b y of fi c e rs to obtain evidenc e usingfederal law . Se eUn ited S tates v . G ilb e rt , 942 F.2d 1537, 1541 ( 11th Cir. 1991). 5 987. U m ol e m ee t s the fi rs tst ep i n t he Franks te s t b y p o in tin g to f a ls e s ta te m e n ts m ade by the Inspect or R ee se i n t he af fi davi tsupp ort i ng her app l i ca t i on for ase ar ch w a r r a n t. I n th e a f

f id a v it, I n s p e c to rR e e s e r e p r e s e n te d th a t s h e w a s a u th o r iz e d to in v e s tig a te v io la tio n s o f s ta te la w . T h e g o v e r n m e n t c o n c e d e s th a t th is s ta te m e n t is un true. A l tho ug h O . C . G . A . § 3 5-9-15 autho ri ze s f eder al offi ce rs t o b e app oi nt ed a s a s t a t e l a w e n f

o r c e m e n to f

f i c e rf o rp u rp o s e s o f

e n f o r c i n g s t a t e o rf

e d e r a l l a w, s he ha d notr e c e i ve d s uc h a n appoi ntm e nta tthe t i m e of the s e a r c h w a r r a nt appl i ca t i on . T hu s, U m ol e s at i sf i es the fi rs tre qu i re m entof Franks by show i ng that I ns pe c t orR e e s e ’ s c l a i m of a uthor i ty s how e d a r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d f orthe truth. 1 W i th res pectt o t he se cond st ep of the show i ng re qu i re d t o o bt ai n a Franks h e a r in g , U m o le h a s n o t m e t h is b u r d e n . U m o le h a s n o t p r o v e d th a t th e a f f id a v it, d is c o u n tin g th e I n s p e c to rR e e s e ’s s ta te m e n t, d o e s n o t e s ta b lis h p r o b a b le c a u s e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a d e th e f o llo w in g f

in d in g w ith r e s p e c t to th e a f f id a v it: “T h is c our tf i nds tha tthe a f

f i da vi tf orthe s e a r c h w a r r a nte s t a bl i s he d pr oba bl e c a us e . T he f a c ttha tI ns pe c t orR e e s e m i s r e pr e s e nt e d he ra uthor i ty unde rs t a t e l a w t o obt a i n theThis finding is contained in the mag istrate judg e’s Order f or Serviceof Report a

nd 2 R e c o mm e n d at i o no f

M ay 5 , 2 0 0 4 , wh i c hth edi s tri c tc o urta d o p t e d i ni t s e nt i r e ty. 6 st at e search w arran t , w h en fed eral st atu t o ry au th o ri ty g ran t s h er su ch au th o ri ty, d o e s n o t m a k e th e r e s u ltin g s e a r c h u n r e a s o n a b le s u c h a s to v io la te th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t.” U m o le h a s n e ith e rc h a lle n g e d th is c ru c ia l f in d in g n o ra r g u e d th a t, 2 a b s e n t I n s p e c to rR e e s e ’s m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n , th e r e w o u ld h a v e b e e n n o p r o b a b le cause. B ec ause U m ol e has fa i l ed t o carry hi s burden, he i s notent i t l ed t o a Franks he a r i ng, a nd hi s c onvi c t i on i s a f f i r m e d. B. B lak el

y/ B oo ker W e have expl ai ned t hatthere ar e tw o p ossi bl e types of B oo ke re r r or : ( 1) the e r r orof s e nt e nc i ng a de f

e nda nton the ba s i s of

f a c t s notf ound by the j ur y nor adm i tt ed by the defendantun der am andat ory gui del i nes s chem e, or “ const i tut i on al error” ; and (2) the error of bei ng se nt ence d u nd era m andat ory gui del i nes s chem e, or “ st atut ory e rr or. ” Se e U ni t e d Stat e s v . She l ton , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 - 3 1 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ). T he S upr e m e C our ti n B oo ke rr e i t e r a t e d i t s hol di ng i n App re nd iv. N ew Je rs ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 3 4 8 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , th a t a c o u r t d o e s n o t o f f e n d th e S ix th A me n d me n tw h e n i ts e n t e n c e s th e d e f e n d a n to n th e b a s i s o f

f a c t s a d mi tt e d b y h i m. 5 4 3 U .S . a t _

_ , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 5 6 . W e h a v e h e ld th a t w h e n a d e f e n d a n t w a iv e s h is obj e c t i ons t o the P r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e por t( P S I ) , he i s de e m e d t o ha ve7

a d m itte d th e f

a c ts c o n ta in e d th e r e in . She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d at13 30 . T here fore , a c ou rt w ho base s i t s s ent ence on fa ct s i n t he P S I t o w hi ch the defendantdo es no tobj ec t do es no terr. H ow ever , w hen t he courtse nt ence s adefe nd antun der am andat ory gu i del i nes s ys t em usi ng fa ct s notadm i tt ed by the defendant , the se nt ence vi ol at es th e S i x th A m en d m en tu n l ess th e g o v ern m en tcan p ro v e th atv i o l at i o n w as h arm l ess b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. P az , 40 5 F . 3d at94 8. In se nt enci ng U m ol e und era m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em , the di stri ctcourtappl i ed three enhancem ent s bas ed on the c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the of f e ns e of c r e di tc a r d f

r a ud, U . S . S . G . §§ 2F 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( H ) , 2F 1. 1( b) ( 2) , a nd 2F 1. 1( b) ( 5) ( C ) ( i ) ( 2000) ; a nd appl i e d one enhancem entfor obstruct i ng or i m pedi ng the adm i ni stra t i on of j ust i ce , un der U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1 . 1 . T h e fi rstth ree en h an cem en t s w ere b ased o n th e am o u n to f l o ss ca l cul at i on (§ 2F 1. 1(b)(1)(H )) , thatthe offe nse i nv ol ved m ov ed m ore than m i ni m al pl a nni ng ( § 2F 1. 1( b) ( 2) ) , a nd the una uthor i z e d tr a ns f e rorus e of

a ny m e a ns of i dent i fi ca t i on un l aw ful l y t o p rodu ce or ob t ai n o ther m ea ns of i dent i fi ca t i on (§ 2 F 1 .1 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( C ) ( i) ) . W i th r e s pe c tt o the a m ountof l os s c a l c ul a t i on, the di s tr i c tc our ta c c e pt e d the c a l c ul a t i on tha tU m ol e putf or th a nd us e d tha tnum be ra s the ba s i s f orthe a m ount o f lo s s e n h a n c e m e n t. U m o le lo d g e d n o f u r th e ro b je c tio n to th e c a lc u la tio n .8

T h e r e f o r e , h e h a s a d m itte d th is f a c t, a n d th e c o u r t’s u s e o f th e c a lc u la tio n a s a b a s is f o rs e n te n c in g d o e s n o t v io la te th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. A s f o rth e tw o o th e re n h a n c e m e n ts b a s e d o n o f f e n s e c h a r a c te r is tic s , U m o le m a de a ge ne r a l obj e c t i on t o the P S I , not i ng tha the ha d nota dm i tt e d the appl i c a bi l i ty of

e i the ra dj us tm e nt . L i ke w i s e , w i th r e ga r d t o the e nha nc e m e ntf or obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e , U m ol e obj e c t e d t o i t s appl i c a t i on. P ur s ua ntt o the gu i del i nes, and t aki ng i nt o acc ou ntthese enhancem ent s, the di stri ctcourti m po se d a s e nt e nc e of

tw e nty - f ourm onths . T he di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d S i xth A m e ndm e nt e r r orby doi ng s o be c a us e the s e e nha nc e m e nt s w e r e ne i the ra dm i tt e d by U m ol e nor f o u n d b y a j u r y a n d we r e i m p o s e d u n d e ra m a n d a t o r y g u i d e l i n e s s y s t e m . Ne x twe ad d ress w h eth er th aterro r w as h arm l ess. T he gove r nm e ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e r r or w a s h a r m le s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. P az , 405 F . 3d a t948. T he gove r nm e nt has a dv ance d t w o argum ent s i n sup po rtof i t s c on t ent i on thatthi s e rr or w as harm l es s. F i rs t , the go vernm entcl ai m s thatbeca use the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d U m ol e a tthe hi gh e nd of the 16- 24 m onth gui de l i ne s r a nge , the r e s ul tw oul d be the s a m e e v e n in a n a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s s c h e m e . F u r th e r m o r e , th e g o v e r n m e n t p o in ts to th e a b s e n c e o f

a n y in d ic a tio n f

r o m th e c o u r t th a t it w o u ld h a v e s e n te n c e d U m o leThe district cour t also denied Umole’ s reque st not to apply a sentencingenhanc ement 3 based on morethan minimal planning enhancement found in U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b) (2) ( 2000). This is not a denial of a request to depa rt downwa

rd, but rather a f

inding that the f

acts supporte d thi s enh anc e ment. Suc h a findingdo e s n ot g iveany ins ight intothedis tric t c ourt ’s prob a ble outcome under

an advisory

guidelines scheme . 9 d if f e r e n tly . T h e g o v e r n m e n t’s a r g u m e n ts m is s th e p o in t. 3 F i rs t , a s ent ence atthe hi gh end o f the gu i del i nes r ange do es no t , i n i t se l f, e s ta b lis h h a r m le s s e r r o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . C a in , 11th C i r . 2005, __ F . 3d __, ( N o. 0 4 - 1 5 7 5 4 , D e c . 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) . T h is is e s p e c ia lly tru e w h e n th e g u id e lin e r a n g e is r e l a t i ve l y s m a l l , a s i ti s he r e . I n U n i t ed S ta t es v. G a l l eg o s-A g u ero , 409 F . 3d 1274 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ), th i s C o u rtfo u n d th atth e g o v ern m en th ad est ab l i sh ed h arm l ess e r r orba s e d on the f

ol l ow i ng: 1) the s e nt e nc e w a s the hi ghe s ta l l ow a bl e w i thi n the g u id e lin e r a n g e , a n d 2 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d s e n te n c in g th e d e f e n d a n t ab ove th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e , to th e m a x im u m a llo w ab le u n d e rth e s ta tu te o f c o n v ic tio n . I d. a t1277. T hi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n G al l egos -A gue r o de pe nde d he a vi l y on the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c om m e nt s r e ga r di ng the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e a l l ow a bl e unde rthe s ta tu te o f c o n v ic tio n , b e c a u s e th e s e c o m m e n ts p r o v id e d s o m e in d ic a tio n a s to w hether the defendantm i gh thave rec ei ved a l ow erse nt ence i f the j ud ge had g r e a te rd is c r e tio n in s e n te n c in g . I d. at 1 2 7 7 n .2 . B y c o n tras t, th e g o v er n m en t’ s onl y a f f i r m a t i ve s how i ng i n thi s c a s e i s tha tU m ol e ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s a tthe t op of the gui de l i ne s r a nge . A s e nt e nc e a tthe t op orbott om of the gui de l i ne s r a nge doe s not10

gi ve any i nd i ca t i on , by i t se l f, as t o w hata di stri ctcourtm i gh tdo un der a n adv i sory gu i del i nes s chem e bec ause thatm i gh tvery w el l re fl ec tthe no rm for apart i cul ar ju d g e . C a in , __ F .3 d a t _

_ ; c f . U ni t e d Stat e s v . F i e lds , 4 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 5 6 , 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng i n pl a i n e r r orc ont e xttha ta s e nt e nc e a tthe bott om of the gu i del i nes r ange do es no tsuff i ce for the defendantt o est abl i sh prej ud i ce ). M o r e o v e r , th e g o v e r n m e n t c a n n o t p o in t to a n a b s e n c e o f e v id e n c e to m e e t its b u r d e n . B e c a u s e th e b u r d e n r e s t s wi th th e g o v e r n m e n ti n p r e s e r v e d e r r o rr e v i e w, an abse nce of evi dence as t o t he di stri ctcourt ’ s probabl e out com e und eran a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s s c h e m e w e ig h s in f a v o ro f th e d e f e n d a n t. See R odri

gu ez , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1301 ( not i ng tha t , i n pr e s e r ve d e r r orc ont e xt , w he n the bur de n i s on the defe nd ant , and w hen n o evi dence i nd i ca t es w hatthe di stri ctcourtm i gh thave do ne, the party w ho bear s the bu rden cannotm ee ti t ). B e c a us e the gove r nm e ntha s f a i l e d t o m e e ti t s bur de n of pr ovi ng tha tthe d istrict co u rt’s er ro r w as h ar m less b ey o n d a r ea so n ab le d o u b t, w e v ac ate U m o le’s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd t o the di s tr i c tc our tf orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I V . CONCL US I ON F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , a nd upon c a r e f ul r e vi e w of

the br i e f s a nd r e c or d, w e r e m a nd t o the di s tr i c tc our tf orpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.