2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-4-2008 

# U SA v . K elley P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4481

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ke lley " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 159. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/159NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4481

___________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , v. HOWARD KE L L E Y, Appel l ant .

__________ A pp eal from the U nit ed S t at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C r . N o. 05- 221) D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: H onor abl e G aryL anca s t er

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

N ovember21, 2008

___________ B e f o re : F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges ,

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber4, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________-2-

G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge : D efe ndant - A ppel l antH ow ar d K el l ey( “K el l ey ”) s ol d cr ack t o a pol i ce c onfi dent i al in f o rm a n t (“ C I” ) d u rin g th re e c o n tro lled b u y s in P itt sb u rg h . T h e C I a rra n g e d th e b u y s to occurnearK el l ey ’ s hom e, w hi ch w as ow ned byhi s m otherand gr andmot her . Pol i ce l at er r ece i ved a t i p fr om anotherC I t hatcr ack a nd guns w er e s t or ed atK el l ey ’ s hom e, and they exec ut ed a s ear ch w arr anton J une 21, 2005. A ppx. 127- 28. Pol i ce s ear ched the gar age, bas ement , and s t or age a r ea, and found s ever al fi r earm s . I n t he l i vi ng r oom , pol i ce s ei zed $1, 835 i n cas h and a phot ogr aph of K el l eyhol di ng a gun i n t he att i c. A ppx. 129- 31, 173. T he att i c r oom , oft en r efe r r ed t o as K el l ey ’ s bedr oom , y i el ded i t s ow n s uppl yof contr aband. Pol i ce r ecove r ed nea r l y120 gr ams of cr ack. A ppx. 142- 45. Sever al l ar ge pi ece s w er e i ns i de a c i garbox on t he fl oorbythe bed, and more cr ack w as di s cover ed i n a pl as t i c bag unde r neath t he dr es s er . A ppx. 89- 92, 111- 12. I n cl os e pr oxi m i t yt o t he ci gar box, offi cer s di s cover ed pl as t i c baggi es , an el ectr oni c di gi t al s cal e w i t h cr ack r es i due on i t , and r i fl e amm uni t i on. A ppx. 92- 95. M or e cr ack w as di s cover ed i n a s hoebox on t op of the dr es s er . A ppx. 120- 21. L eani ng nextt o t he dr es s erw as a l oaded . 223 cal i ber s emi - aut om at i c R ugerr i fl e; nearby , pol i ce f ound compat i bl e amm uni t i on. A ppx. 89- 90, 119- 21. Pol i ce a l s o found m ul t i pl e art i cl es of m ai l addr es s ed t o K el l eyatthe addr es s of t he home and cl ot hes appea r i ng t o fi tK el l ey . A ppx. 95- 97, 106. O n Ju ly2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , K e lleyw a s in d icte d o n se v e n c o u n ts: p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to-3-

di s t r i but e and di s t r i but i on of l es s t han fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d (b )(1 )(C ) (C o u n ts I-I II); p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te f if ty g ra m s o r m o re o f

c o c a in e b a se in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d (b )(1 )(A )(iii) ( C ountI V ) ; pos s es s i ng, us i ng and ca r r y i ng a fi r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug- t r aff i cki ng crim e (n am ely , C o u n t I V ) i n v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(A )(i ) (C o u n t V ); pos s es s i on of an unr egi s t er ed fi r earm i n vi ol at i on of 26 U . S. C . § 5861 ( C ountV I ) ; and p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm w ith a n o b lite ra te d s e ri a l n u m b e r i n v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (k) (C o u n t V II) . C o u n ts I thro u g h III co rresp o n d ed to the three d rug sales to th e C I; C ount s I V t hr ough V I I ar os e fr om t he s ear ch of the hous e on J une 21, 2005. K ell eyp led n o t gu il tyto all cou n ts. F o ll o w ing o p en ing stat em en ts, K ell ey ’s couns el , M r . T err el l , fi l ed a mot i on, nunc pr o tunc, t o s uppr es s evi dence s ei zed f r om t he hous e. T he mot i on w as deni ed as unt i m el y . A ppx. 43- 44. K el l eythen cha nged hi s pl eas to C o u n ts I t h ro u g h II I t o g u ilty. A j ur yt r i al ens ued on C ount s I V thr ough V I I . A ft erthe governm entr es t ed, K el l ey m o v ed fo r ac q u ittal . T h e m o ti o n w as d en ied. A p p x . 1 6 2 . O n Ju ly1 8 , 2 0 0 7 , the ju ry f o u n d K e lle yg u ilty o f

C o u n ts IV a n d V , a n d a c q u itte d h im o f C o u n ts V I a n d V II . O n N ovember16, 2007, K el l eyw as s ent ence d t o 120 m ont hs forC ount s I thr ough I I I , a conc ur r ent120 m ont hs forC ountI V , and a c ons ecut i ve 60 mont hs forC ountV , for a t ot al of 180 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . J udgm entw as ent er ed on N ovember20, 2007. W i t h new couns el , K el l eym oved foracqui t t al bas ed on i ns uffi ci encyof the-4-

evi dence and fora new t r i al beca us e of va r i ous al l eged e vi dent i aryerr or s , and pr es ent ed an ar gum entchal l engi ng t he ef fec t i venes s of hi s tr i al couns el ’ s as s i s t ance . T he D i s t r i ct C our tdeni ed the mot i on and K el l eyt i m el yappea l ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. I. K el l eyar gues t hathi s t r i al couns el pr ovi ded i neff ect i ve r epr es ent at i on due t o four al l eged pr ej udi ci al err or s : ( 1) fai l ur e t o t i m el yfi l e a mot i on t o s uppr es s ; ( 2) “openi ng t he door ” on cr os s - exami nat i on fora pr os ecut i on w i t nes s t o di s cus s the pr evi ous l yexcl uded p h o tog rap h o f K ell ey ; ( 3 ) “o p en ing the d o o r” to a d etec ti v e’s testi m o n yab o u t K ell ey ’s arr i val att he hous e dur i ng t he s ear ch; and ( 4) cal l i ng K el l eyand K el l ey ’ s m otheras w itn e s s e s . K e lle y ’s B r. 1 3 -1 4 . “I thas l ong been the pr act i ce of thi s cour tt o defe rthe i s s ue of i neff ect i venes s of t r i al couns el t o a col l at er al at t ack. N onethel es s , w e have hel d t hatw e mayaddr es s the c laim o f in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l o n d ire c t ap p e a l w h e n th e re c o rd is s u f f icie n t to all o w d eterm ination o f th e issu e.” U n it ed S tat es v . T h o rnto n , 3 2 7 F . 3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 2003) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . K el l eyar gues thatthe exc ept i on appl i es . W e do not a g re e . A s t o the supp res si on m oti on , w hich w as not m ade u nti l aft er open i ng st at em ents , t he mot i on i t s el f s ay s : “The i ns t antm ot i on w as notfi l ed pr i orher et o bas ed upon the bel i ef thatno r el i ef w as t enabl e. ” A ppx. 37. T err el l m ayhave ha d a r eas on fornotfi l i ng

### Kell ey al le ges that he never c am e t o the ho use anddo es no t owna Cadil la c. 1 -5- t he mot i on ear l i er , butt he r ecor d does notdi s cl os e i t . W e agr ee thatthe s uppr es s i on m ot i on s houl d have be en deni ed. T he phot ogr aph ati s s ue s how ed K el l eyhol di ng a gun. I tw as pr oduced on r edi r ect w hen the governm entexami ned the det ect i ve as a r es ul tof Ter r el l ’ s i nqui r ym ade on cr os s - exami nat i on i f the det ect i ve had f ound anyot heri t ems, and the det ect i ve admi t t ed t hathe had. T err el l obj ect ed t o t he phot ogr aph bei ng admi t t ed butw as overrul ed. T he t r i al r ecor d does notdi s cl os e w hyT err el l m ade hi s i ni t i al i nqui r y , al t hough that i nform at i on coul d be fort hcomi ng i n a col l at er al pr ocee di ng. T he s ame i s t rue forcouns el ’ s “openi ng of the door ” t o t es t i m onyaboutK el l ey arr i vi ng att he s cene . T err el l as ked D et ect i ve Em oryw hetherhe s aw any one tr yt o ent er orl eave t he pr oper t ydur i ng t he s ear ch. A ppx. 126- 27. O n r edi r ect , the w i t nes s t es t i fi ed t hatK el l eypul l ed i nt o t he dr i vew ayi n a C adi l l ac a nd then s ped aw ayaft ers eei ng pol i ce. 1 T h e r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r , h o w e v e r , a s t o T e r r e l l ’ s r e a s o n f o re l i c i t i n g th i s t e s t i m o n y. N o r do es th e tri al reco rd d iscl o se T errell ’s strateg yin ca ll ing w itn esse s. K ell ey ’s defe ns e w as l ack of

know l edge of

t he contr aband a nd l ack of contr ol of the hous e. K el l ey a n d h is m o th e r te stif

ied a b o u t th e se su b

jec ts. T h e trial re c o rd p ro v id e s n o in sig h t in to T err el l ’s w ei gh i ng t he b enef i t s of t he tes t i m on yagainstpo t enti al l ydam aging crossexami nat i on. T o cons i derK el l ey ’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m now w oul d r equi r e t oo m uch

### “Dom inion andcontrol”m eans the “ abil it y to re du cean ob

ject to ac tual 2 

### pos s e s s i on. ” Mart or ano, 709 F. 2d at 869. -6- s pecul at i on. T hus , “w e w i l l deny[K el l ey ’ s ] cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w ith o u t p re

ju d ice to h is rig h t to ra ise th is c laim o n a c o llate ra l atta c k b ro u g h t p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 .” U n ite d S ta te s v . T h o rn to n , 3 2 7 F .3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). II. N e x t, w e a d d re ss K e lley ’s a ss e rtio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is pos t - t r i al m ot i on foracqui t t al . W e r evi ew pos t - ver di ctm ot i ons forj udgm entof ac qui t t al d e n o v o a n d “ [ o ] u rs t a n d a r d . . . i s th e s a m e a s th a tw h i c h th e tr i a l c o u r ta p p l i e d . We m us tvi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he j uryver di ctand pr es um e that t he j ur ypr oper l yeval uat ed cr edi bi l i t yof the w i t nes s es , found the fa ct s , and dr ew r at i onal i nfer ence s . ‘ T he ver di ctof a j ur ym us tbe s us t ai ned i f ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence , t aki ng t he vi ew m os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , t o s uppor ti t . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. Iaf eli ce , 9 7 8 F . 2 d 9 2 , 9 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 )(i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). T he es s ent i al el ement s under21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) ar e ( 1) know i ng pos s es s i on of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance and ( 2) i nt entt o di s t r i but e i t . U ni t ed St at es v. B obb, 471 F. 3d 491, 497 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . Poss es s i on can be actual orcons t ruct i ve. C ons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on exi s t s i f a de fenda ntknow i ngl yw as i n a pos i t i on orhad a r i ghtt o exer ci s e “domi ni on and co n tr o l” ov er the co n tr ab an d . U n it ed S tat es v . M artoran o , 7 0 9 F . 2 d 8 6 3 , 8 6 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). 2 T he es s ent i al el ement s of a vi ol at i on of s ect i on 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) ar e ( 1)“ T h e k in d o f e v id e n c e th a t c a n e s ta b lis h d o m in io n a n d c o n tr o l in c lu d e s . . . 3 evi dence t hatt he def

endantat t empt ed t o hi de” drugs . U ni t ed St at es v. J enki ns , 90 F. 3d 8 1 4 , 8 1 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). 

### E v enso , “d o min io nan dco ntro l n eedn o t b e ex clu siv e b ut m ay b e sh aredw ith 4 

### o th ers.” Un itedS tates v . D av is, 4 6 1 F .2 d1 0 2 6 , 1 0 3 5 (3 dC ir. 1 9 7 2 ). -7- t he def endantcomm i t t ed the cr i m e of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e; ( 2) “the defe ndantknow i ngl ypos s es s ed a f i r earm ”; and ( 3) s uch pos s es s i on w as “i n fur t her ance of the cr i m e of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e. ” B obb, 471 F. 3d at496. T he governm entm us tpr ove the fi r earm w as pos s es s ed t o advanc e orpr om ot e cr i m i nal act i vi t i es , l ooki ng ats uch fa ct or s as “the type of drug act i vi t y. . . , acc es s i bi l i t yof the fi r earm , t he type of the w eapon, w hetherthe w eapon i s s t ol en, the s t atus of the pos s es s i on

. . . , w hethert he gun i s l oaded, pr oxi m i t yt o drugs ordrug pr ofi t s , and the t i m e and circu m stan ce s u n d er w h ich th e g u n is fo u n d . ” Id . (cit ati o n o m itted). “U n d er § 9 2 4 (c), t he ‘ m er e pr es ence ’ of a gun i s notenough. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sparr ow , 371 F. 3d 851, 853 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). K el l eyl i ved and s l epti n t he r oom w her e the drugs and r i fl e w er e found. A ppx. 95- 97, 106, 119- 21, 136- 38, 142- 45, 168, 179. C l othes thatfi tK el l eyand mai l addr es s ed t o K el l eyw er e found i n t hatr oom . A ppx. 95- 97, 106. Pol i ce s ei zed the s ame t ype of d ru g th a t K e lle yu s e d in th re e c o n tr o lle d b u y s , a n d f o u n d b a g g ie s a n d a s c a le in th e ro o m . T he drugs i n t he att i c w er e hi dden. N o one el s e i n t he hous e us ed ors ol d cr ack, and 3 K el l eyw as unab l e t o ident i fyw ho el se the it em s bel on ged t o. T he g un w as i n close 4 pr oxi m i t ybot h t o w her e K el l eyl i ved and t o w her e he s t or ed hi s drugs . A ppx 119- 21.-8-

In U nit ed S t at es v. B row n, 3 F . 3d 67 3 (3d C i r. 19 93 ) and U nit ed S t at es v. Jenkins, 9 0 F .3 d 8 1 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ), w e o v e rtu rn e d c o n v ictio n s o f d e f e n d a n ts w h o w e re m e re lyin cl os e phy s i cal pr oxi m i t yt o contr aband. O n t he otherhand, w e found c ons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on i n M ar t or ano, 709 F. 2d at869, w hen the def endanthad key s t o a van co n tai n ing d rug s, an d in U n it ed S tat es v . Iaf eli ce , 9 7 8 F . 2 d 9 2 , 9 5 -98 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), w her e the def

endantow ned the vehi cl e thattr ans por t ed the drugs , and enga ged i n other s u s p i c i o u s a c t i v i t y. T hi s cas e, unl i ke B r ow n and J enki ns , i nvol ves m or e than mer e pr oxi m i t y , and t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fora j uryt o fi nd thatK el l eyknew of and ha d dom i ni on and c o n tr o l o v e r t h e d ru g s a t is s u e a n d th e f ir e a rm f o r c o n s tru c tiv e p o s s e s s io n . W e al s o hol d t hata j ur ycoul d fi nd thatthe gun w as pos s es s ed “i n fur t her ance ” of t he drug cr i m e. See B obb, 471 F. 3d at496. K el l eyneed nothave “ carr i ed” or“us ed” the gun i n drug deal s . See U ni t ed St at es v. G arner , 338 F. 3d 78, 81 ( 1s tC i r . 2003) . T he R u g e r w a s f

o u n d c lo se to th e d ru g s; it w a s re a d ilya c c e ss ib le; th e g u n , a la rg e se m iaut om at i c r i fl e, coul d nothave be en us ed forhunt i ng, A ppx. 125; K el l eydi d nothave a l i cens e, A ppx. 157; and the gun w as l oaded. K el l ey ’ s ar gum entthati ns uffi ci entevi dence w as addu ced is m eri t l ess. III . K el l eyal s o ar gues t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o a new tr i al beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n admi t t i ng t he phot ogr aph s how i ng K el l eyw i t h a gun thathad pr evi ous l ybeen e xcl uded-9-

a s p re ju d icia l. A p p x . 4 4 . W e h a v e re f e rre d to th is e v id e n tiary pr o b lem su p ra in di s cus s i ng K el l y ’ s cl ai m t hathe w as i neff ect i vel yr epr es ent ed attr i al . “[W ] e r evi ew evi dent i aryrul i ngs forabus e of di s cr et i on . . . . ” U ni t ed St at es v. B r i nk, 39 F. 3d 419, 425 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n admi tt i ng the phot ogr aph s how i ng K el l eyw i t h a gun bec aus e K el l ey ’ s couns el had opene d t he doort o i t s admi s s i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. Sheer an, 699 F. 2d 112, 119 ( 3d C i r . 1983) . T her e w as al r eady s i gni fi cantevi dence t y i ng K el l eyt o the drugs and the gun, and w e w oul d be har d pr es s ed t o s ayt hatt hi s one phot ogr aph pr ovi ded the bas i s forthe j uryt o connec tK el l eyt o t he gun. W e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.