# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d Febr uary3, 20 10 Deci ded February4, 20 10

B efo re K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09- 1205 U N IT E D ST A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v. R E GI NAL D S MI T H,

D ef endant-Appellant
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t forthe So u th er n D ist ric t o f Ind ian a, In d ian ap olis D ivis ion . N o. 08
- CR
- 0003 8 Sarah Ev an s B arker, Judg e . O R D E R Re g i na l d S m i thwas f o und gui l tyb y a j ur y o fpo ss es singa fi r ea r m a fte r a fel o ny convi cti on, 18 U
. S. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1) , and w as sente nced to 108 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. S m i th fi l ed a no ti ce o fa ppea l, b uthi s appo i nt ed l awy er s r epr es en t th atthe c as e i s fr i vo l o us a nd m ov e t o w ith d ra w . SeeAnd ers v. C alif ornia , 386 U
. S. 738 (1967). Sm ith obj ects to coun sel’s su b m iss ion . See C IR . R. 51 (b ). W e lim it ou r re vie w to th e p ot en tia l issu es co n sid er ed in c ou n se l’s fa c ially ad eq u at e s u p p or tin g b rie f an d in Sm ith ’s re sp on se . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc huh , 289 F.3d 968 , 973-74 (7th C ir. 2002). NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 1205 Page 2

A t 6 : 45 a. m . o n a Dece m berm or ni ng i n 200 7, pol i ce in I nd i anapol i s, Ind i ana, r es po nde d t o a 9 11 c al l r epo r tingtha t sh o ts ha d b ee n fi r ed. T he a cc o unt s g i ve n b y the p oli ce offi cers an d Sm ith d iffer as to w ha t hap p en ed nex t. A t a pret rialhearing on Sm ith’s m oti on t o supp re ss hi s pos tar re st sta tem ents, Offi cerFi gura, the fi rs t o ffi cero n the scene, note d that the ar ea w as deser ted exce pt f orS m i th kno cki ng o n a doo r dem anding to be l et i n. When F i g ur a appr o ac he d t o s ee i fS m i thha d he ar d the s ho ts , he s aw S m i thdr o p o n the si dew al k what tur ned out t o be a
. 30- cal iberr i fl e. F i gura ( now j oi ned by ba ckup offi cer s) ar re st ed Sm ith , sea rc h ed h is p oc ke ts , an d d isc ov er ed se ve ra l . 30 -c alib er bu llet s. Sm ith to ld Fi gura thati t was nothi s gun. W hen the offi cer s e xplained they w er e a rr est i ng S m i th be ca us e he was f o und wi tha g un a fte r a r epo r t o fs ho ts fi r ed, S m i thb eg ans wea r i nga t th e o ffi ce r s. F i g ur a as k ed f o r S m i th ’ s i den ti fy i ngi nf o r m at i o n, b uthe t es ti fi ed th athe a sk ed no o the r que s t i o ns . An o the r o ffi c e r, De c k e r, t e s t i fi e d tha th e r e a d M i r anda warni ngs t o Sm i th fro m a car d. W hen ask ed i fhe unders too d those warni ngs, S m i th r epor tedl y r esponded, “I ain ’t t ellin g y ou sh it.” Pol i ce c onti nued to i nvest i gat e the ar ea, di sco ver i ng se ver alspent . 30- cal iber ca sing s. Dur i ngthe i nv es ti g at i o n, S m i thwas k eptne arbyi n h an dcuff s, b utpo l i ce s ai d he was no t que st i o ne d. Agi ta te d a nd ups et, S m i tha cc o st ed th e i nv es ti g at i ngo ffi ce r s wi tha st r i ngo fl ewd a nd abus i ve c o m m en ts , b uthe a l so v o l unt ee r ed th athe was a mem be r o fthe 10 thS tr ee t Van i shGa nga nd ha d b ee n s ho t atb y “ M ez , ” a m embe r o fa r i va lg an gwar r i ng ov er d ru g t u rf. S mi th ’ s v e r s i o n o fe v e n t s wa s d i ffe r e n t . A l th o u g h h e a d mi t t e d ma k i n gl e wd com m ents afterhi s a rr est, he t est i fi ed that he neve r saw the r i fl e, di d not hav e a ny bul l ets i n h i s po ck et s, was no t g i ve n M i r anda warni ngs, and nevervo l unteer ed that he was shotat orwas a m em bero fa gang. At t r i alOffi ce r s F i g ur a an d De ck ert es ti fi ed co ns i st en tly wi ththe i r t es ti m o ny a t th e supp re ssi on hea ring, as di d Sm i th. The j ury re turned a gui l ty ver dict
. At sent enci ng, after concl ud i ng tha t S m i th’ s t est i m ony at tr i alwas perj uri ous a nd warra nted a tw o- l eve l i ncre ase i n hi s o ffense l eve l, the dist ri ct c ourtcal cul ate d his gui del i nes r ange to be 120 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent ( the r ange w oul d have be en 12 0 t o 150 m onths but was capped by the s tatutor y m axi m um )
. Bel i evi ng the re to be “st i l lso m e ho pe” f orS m i th, the dist ri ct cour t s entence d him to 10 8 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. I n th eir A nd ers su bmi ss i o n, c o uns elfi r stque st i o n whe th erS m i thc o ul d c ha l l en g e th e den i alo fhi s m o ti o n t o s uppr es s hi s po st ar r es t st at ement s. When r ev i ewi nga r ul i ngo n a mot i o n t o s up pr e s s , we e v a l ua t e f a c t ua lfi nd i ng s f o r c l e a r e r r o r a nd que s t i o ns o fl a w de n ov o. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bur ns i de, 58 8 F
. 3d 511, 51 6- 17 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. M oti ons to supp re ss al m ostal w ays i nvol ve f act- speci fi c i nquir i es, and beca use i t was the di str i ct j ud ge w hoN o. 09
- 1205 Page 3

h ea rd th e t es tim on y a n d ob se rv ed th e w itn es se s a t t h e s u p p re ss ion h ea rin g, w e w ou ld d efe r to th e jud ge ’s c re d ibilit y fin d in gs , w h ich alm os t n ev er w ill be c lea rly err on eo u s. U nited Sta tes v. Stew a rt, 536 F.3d 71 4, 72 0 (7 th C ir.), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct
. 741 (2008); U nited St at e s v. Biggs , 491 F.3d 61 6, 62 1 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). C ou n se l rec og n ize th at st at em en ts m ad e in re sponse to custo diali nter ro gat i on would be i nadm i ssibl e i fthe defe nd ant was notadvi sed of h is c on st itu tio n al rig h ts to silen c e a n d co u n se l. M i r anda v. Ar izona , 38 4 U.S
. 43 6, 44 4 (19 66 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pe t e rs on , 414 F.3d 82 5, 82 8 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). B u t itw as n otcle ar ly er ro neous f orthe cour t t o concl ud e that a l though S m i th i ni ti al l y invoke d his r i ght t o si l en ce , he l at erwai ve d tha t r i g htb y v o l unt ee r i ngi nf o r m at i o n abo utthe s ho o tinga nd g an g w ar . V olu n te er ed st at em en ts are ad m iss ible , M i randa , 384 U .S. at 4 78 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hendrix , 509 F.3d 36 2, 37 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ), so a n y c h alle n ge to th e s u p p re ss ion ru lin g w ou ld be fri vol ous. Counsel next consi der whether Sm i th m i ght c hal l enge the a dm i ssi on a t t ri alo f ev i den ce tha t th e po l i ce wer e r es po ndi ngt o a 9 11 c al ltha t sh o ts ha d b ee n fi r ed, tha t th e ar re st in g off ice rs d isc ov er ed sp en t s h ell c as in gs n ea r Sm ith , an d th at th e o ffice rs w er e t old by Sm ith th at he w as sh ot at beca us e of a gan g turf battle. W e w ou ld review eviden tiary ru lin gs for a n ab u se of d isc re tio n, U nited Sta tes v. C o nn er, 583 F.3d 101 1, 1018 ( 7th Cir. 2009), but would r eve rs e a co nvi cti on o nl y i fthe rul i ng had a substa nti ali nfl uence o n the ver dict, U nite d State s v. O rt iz , 474 F
. 3d 976, 98 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. W e would fi nd no abuse of di sc r et i o n in the a dm i ss i o n o fthi s ev i den ce . At tr i alS m i thr efus ed to s ti pul at e th atthe item f ou nd on th e sidew alk after his arrest w as d esigned to fire an d thu s m et th e statu tory defini ti on o fa “fi re ar m . ” See 18 U. S
. C. § 9 21 ( a) ( 3)
. Bo ththe
. 30
- ca l ibe r c as i ng s an d the evi dence thatthe pol i ce were r eact i ng to a re porto fgunfi re ar e r el evantto the questi on w h et h er Sm ith p os se ss ed a fire ar m . See U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 25 F. 3d 563, 568 (7th Cir. 1994 ) ( obs er vi ng tha t pr ese nce o fbul l ets i s r el evantto questi on wh ethera “fi re ar m ” was posse sse d). And al though the di str i ct c ourti ni ti al l y b ar re d the g ove rnm ent fro m i ntro du ci ng te sti m ony about host i l i ti es between r i valga ngs, the cour t cha nged i ts vi ew aft er Sm ith te st ified th at h e n ev er to ld th e o ffice rs an yt h in g a b ou t t h e s h oo tin g; th at d en ial, th e c ou rtrea so n ed , op en ed th e d oo r to im p ea c h in g t es tim on y c on c er n in g w h at Sm ith d id tel l the offi cer s, incl ud i ng hi s g ang a ffi l i ati on. W e would co ncl ud e that the te sti m ony w as p ro p er be c au se it ex p lain ed Sm ith ’s m ot ive for p os se ss in g t h e fire ar m an d am m u n itio n . A ccor dingl y, any chal l enge to these ev i denti ar y r ulings woul d be fri vol ous. Cou ns elne xtc o ns i derwhethe r S m i thmightc ha l l en g e th e su ffi ci en cyo fthe ev i den ce s uppo r tinghi s co nv i ct i o n, a c o nt en ti o n we woul d a cc epto nl y i f, v i ewi ngthe evi dence i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the pr ose cuti on, “no r ati onaltr i ero ff act coul d have f ound p ro ofo fgui l t be yond a re aso nabl e doubt. ” Jackson v. Virgini a , 44 3 U.S
. 30 7, 32 4 (19 79 ); U nite d State s v. Harris , 585 F.3d 39 4, 40 2 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). B u t b ec au se th e jur y c ou ldN o. 09
- 1205 Page 4

re l y o n the pol i ce o ffi cer s’ te sti m ony that they saw Sm i th dro p the r i fl e a nd thatbul l ets w er e di sco ver ed i n hi s pock ets , thi s chal l enge w oul d be fri vol ous. Counsel and Sm i th the n questi on wh etherther e m i ght b e a nonfri vol ous b asi s for Sm ith to ch all en ge his p rison sen ten ce. Sm ith p rop oses to argu e tha t the district cou rt ap p lied a p re su m p tio n th at a se n te n c e w ith inth e g u id elin es ran ge sh ou ld be im p os ed
. Su c h a p re su m p tio n w ou ld h av e b ee n err or , R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U
. S. 338, 351 (2007 ); U nite d State s v. Sm ith , 562 F.3d 866 , 872 (7th C ir. 2009), bu t in Sm ith’s case th e d istri ct cou rt did exact l y a s i t s houl d: as the di str i ct c ourtexpl ai ned, i t would “l oo k a t those gui del i nes and see i ftheyr epres ent a r eas onabl e s entence i n thi s ca se, i n yo ur ca se; and i fnothow they shoul d be t w eak ed orchange d orm odi fi ed. ” See G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U.S
. 38 , 49 -50 (20 07 ); U nited Sta tes v. H urt, 574 F
. 3d 439, 44 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( concl ud i ng tha t di str i ct cour t pr oper l y c al cul ate d sentence and then co nsi dered wh etherthatse ntence w oul d be re as on ab le); Sm ith , 562 F.3d at 872 ( sam e). Sm ith also conte nd s tha t the district cou rt di s r e g a r de d U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 54 3 U.S
. 22 0 ( 2005 ) , byi ncre asi ng hi s o ffense l eve lf or o b s t r u c t i o n o fj u s t i c e w i th o u tl e t t i n ga j u r y d e c i d e w h e th e r h e p e rj u r e d h i ms e l fa tt r i a l
. We have expla i ned re peatedl y, however, that B o o k erhol ds that gui del i nes a dj ustm ents ar e for th e s en te n c in g c ou rtto d ec id e, n otth e jur y. E.g . , U nited Sta tes v. P a rr, 54 5 F
. 3d 491, 50 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ), cert. denied , 129 S. C t. 19 84 (20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cl ant on , 53 8 F
. 3d 652, 65 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); U nite d State s v. R oti, 4 84 F
. 3d 93 4, 9 37( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Mor eo ve r, b ec au se the fi ndi ngtha t S m i thpe rj ur ed hi m se l fi s no t cl ea r l y e r r o ne o us , we woul d no t o ve r tu r n the tw o-le ve l inc re as e fo r ob st ru c tio n of j u st ice . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ande rs on , 58 0 F
. 3d 639, 64 8 ( 7th Cir
. 20 09)
. F i nal l y, bec ause i t i s “ hard to co ncei ve ofbel ow-r ange sente nces that w oul d be unreas onabl y hi gh, ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ge or ge, 40 3 F
. 3d 470, 47 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) , any chal l enge to the l ength ofthe i m pri sonm ent t er m would be fri vol ous. Last, co unselco nsi der whether Sm i th m i ght c hal l enge the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f h is p re tr ial re q u es t fo r n ew co u n se l or th e e ffec tiv en es s o f h is t ria l co u n se l. W e w ou ld r ev er se a c o nv i ct i o n b as ed o n the de ni alo fs ubs ti tu te c o uns elo nl y i fthe l awy erwho re m ain ed on th e c as e w as co n st itu tio n ally ine ffec tiv e. U nite d State s v. Harris , 39 4 F
. 3d 543, 552 (7th Cir. 2005); U nited Sta tes v. Z illg es , 97 8 F
. 2d 369, 37 2- 73 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92)
. But be cause, as both counseland Sm i th co ncede, the re cor d i s insuffi ci ent t o deter m i ne wh ether counsel ’ s per f or m ance was adequate , any chal l enge on thi s r eco rd to the cour t’ s deni alo f th e re q u es t o r th e e ffec tiv en es s o f h is c ou n se l w ou ld be be st res er ve d for c olla te ra l rev iew . See M a ssaro v. U nited Sta tes , 538 U .S. 50 0, 50 4 (2 00 3); U nite d State s v. Turcotte, 40 5 F
. 3d 515, 537 (7th Cir. 2005). A ccor dingl y, co unsel ’ s m oti on t o w i thdraw is GR AN TED an d th e a p p ea l is D I SM I SSED
.