2009 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

7-28-2009 

# U SA v . K evin Abb ott
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-1623

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Kevin Ab bott " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 884. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/884P 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. 08- 1623

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. KEV I N A BBO TT,
A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 05- cr - 00333) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C ynt hi a M

. R ufe

A r gued M ar ch 3, 2009 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , SL O V I T E R and H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed: J ul y28, 2009)2 M ark S

. M il ler [A rgu ed ] El i z a b e t h F

. Ab r a ms O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106- 0000 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee J enni ferA

. L

. B at t l e [A r gued] J os eph A ncl i en E liza b e th K . A in slie 1600 M ar ketSt r eet Sui t e 3600 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103- 0000 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge

. K evi n A bbot tappea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence fol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al

. A bbot t se eks a new t r i al , cl ai m i ng t he D i stri ctC ou rterr e d w h e n i tden i ed h i s m oti on t o sup press evi dence and gr ant ed the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne to admi thi s pr i or convi ct i on i nt o evi dence

. A bbot t al s o cl ai m s t he D istri ct C o u rterred b yim p o sing co n sec u ti v e m an d atory mi n i mu m s e n t e n c e s o f f i f t e e n y e a r s p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S

. C.W e r ec o u n tt he fa ct s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he 1 G o v e rn m e n t, as th e v e rd ic t w in n e r. See U ni t ed St at es v. V

oigt , 8 9 F

. 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 8 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ). 3 § 924( e) and fi ve y ear s pur s uantt o 18 U

. S. C

. § 924( c)

. For t he r e a s o n s t h a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. 1
A ct i ng on a t i p t hat a bl ack m al e w as s el l i ng i l l egal drugs on t he 1700 bl ock of Font ai n Stre et , t he Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epart m entarr anged f ora conf

i dent i al i nfor m antt o m ake cont r ol l ed pur chas es of her oi n. O n Sept ember 21 and 22, 2004, t he i nfor m antappr oache d a man l at eri dent i fi ed as M i chae l G r an t, w ho w as s t andi ng i n fr ontof 1739 Font ai n St r eet( t he P rem i ses) , and of

fered cash t o G ranti n ex chan ge fo r drug s. G r antt hen ent er ed t he Pr emi s es and r etur ned w i t h her oi n. A l s o on Sept ember 22, 2004, butbefor e the contr ol l ed pur chas e t hatday , pol i ce obt ai ned a w arr antt o s ear ch the P rem ise s t hatauthor i zed them t o s ei ze drugs , drug par a ph e r na l i a , mone y , a nd w e a po ns . The w a r r a nta l so author i zed the s ear ch of “ al l per s ons pr es entw ho m aybe conceali ng nar cot i cs orot heri l l egal contr aband. ” I n t he aff i davi tof pr obabl e ca us e, a pol i ce of fi cerdes cr i bed the c o n tro lled p u rc h a se o n S e p tem b e r 21 in d e tail an d sta ted th a t in hi s exper i ence , “def

endant s [] fr equent l ys el l and s t as h nar cot i cs f ro m in s id e a lo c a tio n .”4 B ef o re p o li ce ex ec u ted t h e w arran t, they arran g ed a third cont r ol l ed pur chas e for Sept ember 23, 2004. O n t hatday , G r ant s ai d he had no her oi n, s o t he i nfor m ant r eques t ed cr ack c ocai ne, w hi ch G r antr etr i eved f r om an aba ndoned l ot

. Shor t l yaft ert he excha nge, pol i ce r etur ned t o exec ut e t he sea r ch w arr ant and they found G ran t in frontof t he Pr emi s es . A s G r antw as bei ng arr es t ed, A ppel l antA bbot t— w ho w as s t andi ng i n t he doorw ay of t he Pr emi s es as pol i ce appr oache d

— s l amm ed t he doorw hen o ff icers ide n ti fied them selv es. T h e p o li ce b rok e d o w n the d o o r, e n te re d th e h o u se , an d a rre ste d A b b o tt as h e w a s try in g to e sc a p e th ro u g h a k itch e n w in d o w . A t th e tim e o f h is a rre st, A bbot thad $617 i n cas h ( i ncl udi ng $20 i n pr er ecor ded buy m o n e y ) a s w e ll a s a k e yto th e f ro n t d o o r o f

th e P re m is e s , a s m al l bag of mar i

j uana, and a f

al s e dr i ver ’ s l i cens e. I n addi t i on, ul t r avi ol etl i ghtr evea l ed r es i due fr om t he mark ed bi l l s on A bb ott ’s han ds.
A s ear ch of t he Pr emi s es uncover ed drugs , drug par aphernal i a, and tw o handguns

. M uch of the contr aband a nd t o o l s o f t h e d ru g t r a d e we r e i n p l a i n vi e w i n a f r o n tr o o m, i ncl udi ng codei ne sy rup, empt ybot t l es , a s cal e, and cr ack coca i ne. T he handguns w er e found hi dden behi nd fur ni tur e and in sid e a c lo se t. II. O n Ju n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 , a f

ed era l gran d juryreturn ed a f o u rcounti ndi ct m ent agai ns t A bbot t and G r ant , char gi ng t hem w i t h: ( 1) consp ir acyt o pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance i n vi ol at i on of 21 U

. S

. C

. § 846; ( 2) pos s es s i on of m or e than fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne bas e w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, and ai di ng and abett i ng, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U

. S. C

. §§ 841( a) ( 1)5 a n d (b )(1 )(B ), an d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 ; (3 ) p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm in fur ther ance of a drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e, and ai di ng and abe t t i ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. §§ 924(c) ( 1) and ( c) ( 2) ; and ( 4) pos s es s i on of a fi r earm by a convi ct ed fel on i n vi olat ion o f 18 U

. S

. C

. § § 9 2 2 (g) a n d 9 2 4 (e).
G r ant pl eade d gui l t y , but A bbot t w ent t o t r i al

. B efor e the j ur yw as empanel ed, A bbot t fi l ed a m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence , argui ng t hat the search w as i l l egal because t he “a ll pers on s” w ar r antw as overbr oad. For i t s par t , t he G overnm entfi le d a m ot i on i n l i m i ne to a d m it A b b o tt’s p rio r f e lo n yc o n v ictio n in to evi dence underFeder al R ul e of E vi dence 404( b)

. T he D i s t r i ct C our td en ied A bbot t ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s and gr ant ed the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne . A tt ri al , t he G ov ernm ent call ed G rant as a w i t ness against A bbot t

. G r ant test i fi ed thathe and A bbot ts ol d drugs t ogether fors ever al m ont hs , and thathe had s een A bbot t carr y one of the handguns r ecove r ed fr om the hous e. I n addi t i on, t he G o v e r n m e n t ca lled a p o lice o f f ice r w h o h a d a rre ste d A b b o tt t hr ee y ear s ear l i er fors el l i ng coca i ne i n fr ontof t he Pr emi s es as e v id e n c e o f

A b b o tt’s k n o w led g e o r in ten t p u rsu a n t to R u le 404( b)

. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued a c aut i onaryi ns t ruct i on t o t he juryb ef o re the o ff

ic e r te s ti fied in this reg ard

. T h e jury con vict ed A bb ottof all fou r char ges. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d A bbot t to w h at i tdeemed t he s t atut or ym andatory m i ni m um : a t ot al of 240 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , compri s ed of 180 m ont hs on C ount4 ( pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on of §§ 922( g) and 9 2 4 (e )); a n d 6 0 m o n th s o n C o u n t 3 (p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm inA bbot tw as al s o s ent ence d t o t er m s of i m pr i s onm entof 2 120 m o nt hs forvi ol at i ng 21 U

. S. C

. § 846 and 120 mont hs for v iolati n g 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § 8 4 1 (a)(1). B ec au se t h e D istri c t C o u rt or der ed thes e s ent ence s t o run concurr ent l y , t heyar e not ati s s ue o n a p p e a l. 6 fur ther ance of a drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e i n vi ol at i on of § § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(A ) an d (c)(2)). 2
A bbot t d id n o tdi s put e thathi s 180- m ont h s ent ence on C o u n t 4 was ma n d a t e d b y t h e Ar me d Ca r e e r Cr i mi n a l A ct , 18 U

. S. C

. § 924( e) (A C C A ) , beca us e he ha d t hr ee pr evi ous c o n v ic tio n s f

o r “ v io le n t f

e lo n [ ie s ] o r [ ] s e ri o u s d ru g o f f e n s e [ s ].” § 924( e) ( 1)

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound t hatA bbot tfac ed an addi t i onal 60 m ont hs i ncar cer at i on on C ount 3 forpos s es s i on of a f ire a rm in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

a d ru g tra f

f ick in g c rim e p u rsu a n t to § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) , w hi ch m u st b e i m pos ed “ in a dd iti o n to t he puni s hm ent

. . . for [t he] drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e. ” I

d. (e m p h a sis added)

. A s t he D i s t r i ct C our t al s o not ed, § 924( c) pr ovi des t hat “n o term o f im p ri so n m en t im p o sed o n a p erso n u n d er [ § 9 2 4 (c)] s hall run concurr ent l yw i t h anyot hert er m of i m pr i s onm ent im p o sed o n the p erso n . ” § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(D )(i i)

. D es pi t e t hi s l anguage , A bbot t obj ect ed t o hi s s ent ence on t he bas i s of § 924( c) ’ s pr efa t or y cl aus e, w hi ch begi ns : “Except t o the e x tent t hat a gr eat er m i nim um sent ence is other w i se p ro v id e d b yth is s u b s e c tio n o r b y a n y o th e r p ro v is io n o f la w . .

. . ” § 92 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A)

. Be c a u s e AC CA s u b j e c t e d h i m t o a 1 8 0- m o n th m in im u m s e n te n c e , s ee § 924( e) , A bbot t ar gued t hathe w as exempt fr om the cons ecut i ve mi ni m um s ent ence i m pos ed7 b y§ 9 2 4 (c ). T h e D istric t C o u rt re jec ted A b b o tt ’ s a rg u m e n t, not i ng t hats ever al ot hercour t s of appe al s have h el d t hat“the pl ai n m eani ng o f sect i on 924( c) cl ear l ys t at es t hata t er m of i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed under sect i on 924( c) cannotrun concurr ent l yw i t h any ot her t er m of i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed for anyot her cr i m e, i ncl udi ng a s ent ence under [A C C A ]

. ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . A b b o tt , N o . 0 5

- 3 3 3 -1 , 2 0 0 8 W L 5 4 0 7 3 7 , a t * 2 n .8 ( E

. D. P a . F e b

. 2 7 , 2 0 0 8 )

. Ab b o t tf i l e d t h i s t i me l ya p p e a l a n d we have j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291 and 18 U

. S. C

. § 3742.
III

. A.
A lth o u g h A b b o tt as sig n s e rro r to th e D istric t C o u rt b o th att r i al and s ent enci n g , w e tur n fi r s tt o t he s ent enci ng i s s ue beca us e i ti s t he i s s ue of mostpr ece dent i al i m por tas i ti s t he subjectof d i sagreem ent am on g co urt s of ap peals

. Sever al ot hercour t s of appe al s have i nt erpr et ed § 924( c) in c ir c u m s ta n c e s s im ila r t o A b b o tt’ s . See U ni t ed S tates v. E as t er , 5 5 3 F .3 d 5 1 9 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U ni t ed S tates v. P ar ker , 5 4 9 F .3 d 5 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Whi t l ey , 5 2 9 F. 3d 1 5 0 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ol l i ns , 205 Fed. A ppx. 196 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); U

n itedS ta tes v . S tu d ifi n , 2 4 0 F

. 3 d 4 1 5 (4th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); U n ited S ta tes v . Jo live tte , 2 5 7 F

. 3 d 5 8 1 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); U n itedS ta tes v . A la n iz , 235 F. 3d 3 8 6 ( 8t h C i r . 2000)

. For t he re a so n s th a t f

o llo w , w e jo in th e m a jo rityo f th e se c o u rts in hol di ng t hata s ent ence i m pos ed fora s epar at e of fe n se cannot su p p lant o r ab rog ate a § 9 2 4 (c) sen tenc e u n d er the statu te’s pr efa t or ycl aus e.8 A s in all ca ses o f statuto ryinterpre tat ion , o u r i n q u iry beg i ns w i t h the l ang uag e of t he st atute and focu ses on C on gress ’ in te n t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

h it ed , 311 F. 3d 259, 263- 64 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. I n t hi s cas e, w e m u stexami ne the r el evant s u b s e c t i o n i n i t s e n t i r e t y: (A ) E xc ep t t o the e xten t t h a t a g rea ter m i ni m um s ent ence is other w is e pr ovi ded by this s ubs ect i on orby any otherpr ovis i on of l aw , any per s on w ho, dur i ng and i n r elat i on t o any cr i m e of vi ol ence or drug traf f i cki ng cri m e . . . uses or carri es a f i r ear m , orw ho, i nf

ur ther ance of any s uch cr i m e, pos s es s es a f

i r ear m , s hal l

, i n addi t i on to the punis hm ent

pr o v i ded f

ors uch cr i m e of

vi ol ence or dr u gtr a f f i c k i n gc r i me – ( i ) be s ent ence d t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm entof no tl ess than 5 y ears ; ( i i ) i f t he fi r earm i s br andi s hed, b e sent ence d t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm ent of notl es s t han 7 y ear s ; and ( i i i ) i f t he fi r earm i s di s char ged, be s en tenc ed t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm ent of notl es s t han 10 y ears . ( B ) I f t he fi r earm pos s es s ed by a per s on convi ct ed of a vi ol at i on of t hi s s ubs ect i on – ( i ) i s a s hor t
- bar r el ed r i fl e, s hor t
- b ar r el ed s hot gun, ors e mi a u t o m at i c as s aul tw eapon, t he per s on s hal l b e s ent ence d t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm entof not l es s t han 10 y ear s ; or9 ( i i ) i s a machi negun ora des t ruct i ve devi ce, or i s equi pped w i t h a fi r earm s i l ence ror fi r earm m uffl er , t he perso n s hal l be s ent ence d t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm ent of not l ess than 30 y ears . ( C ) I n t he cas e of a sec o n d or s ubs equentconvi ct i on u n d e r th is s u b se c tio n , the p e rso n sh a ll – ( i ) be s ent ence d t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm entof notl es s t han 25 y ear s ; and ( i i ) i f t he fi r earm i nvol ved i s a m achi negun or a des t ruct i ve devi ce, or i s equi pped w i t h a fi r earm s i l ence rorfi r earm m uffl er , be s ent ence d t o i m pr i s onm entforl i fe. ( D) No t wi t h s t a n d i n g a n yo t h e rp r o v i s i o n o f l a w – ( i ) a cour t s h a l l n o tp l a c e o n p r o bat i on any p e r s o n c o n v icte d o f

a v io latio n o f

th is s ubs ect i on; and (i i) no t er m of

i mp r is o n men t i mposed on a pers on under this s ubs ect i on s hal lrun concurr ent l

y w i th any othert er m of i m pr is onm ent

i m pos ed on t he per

s on , i ncl udi ng anyt er m of i m pr i s onm ent i m pos ed fort he cr i m e of vi ol ence ordrug tr af fick ing crim e d u ri n g w h ich th e f ir ea rm w as us ed, carr i ed, orpos s es s ed. § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ).T he pr i orver s i on of § 924( c) ( 1) m er el ypr ohi bi t ed us i ng 3 orcar r yi nga f ire a rm “ d u rin g a n d in re latio n to ” a p re d ica te offe ns e. I n B ai l ey v . U ni t ed Stat es , 516 U

. S. 137 ( 1995) , t he S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t “u sin g ” a f ire a rm m e a n t ac tiv e ly empl oy i ng i t

. I n r es pons e, C ongr ess s uper s eded B ai l ey by a m e n d in g th e sta tu te to p r o h ib it pos s es s i on o f a f ire a rm “ in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

” a p re d ic a te o f

f e n s e . S e e S tu d ifi n , 240 F. 3d at 4 2 0 -2 1 ; A la n iz , 235 F. 3d at386- 90 ( bot h di s cus s i ng l egi s l at i ve h is to ry). 10 T he cont ext of § 924( c) ( 1) r efl ect s s i gni fi cants t ructur al al t er at i ons m ade i n 1998, w hen C ongr es s added the “pos s es s es i n fur t her ance ” cl aus e t o br oaden the s t atut e’ s r eac h. T he pr i or 3 ver s i on of t he s t atut e r ead:
W hoeve r, dur i ng and i n r elat i on t o any cri m e of vi ol ence ordr ug t ra

ff i cki ng cr i m e . . . us es or carri es a f

i r ear m , s hal l

, i n addi t i on t o the punis h ment

pr ovi ded f

ors uch cr i m e of

vi ol ence or dr u g tr a

f f i c k i n g c r i me , b e s e n te n c e d to im p riso n m e n t f

o r f iv e y e a rs, a n d if

th e f ire a rm is a s hor t
- barr el ed r i fl e, s hor t
- barr el ed s hot gun, or s emi aut om at i c as s aul tw eapon, t o i m pr i s onm ent fort en y ear s , and i f t he fi r earm i s a machi negun, o r a d e s t ru c t i v e d e v i c e , o r i s e q u i p p e d w i t h a f ire a r m s il e n c e r o r f ir e a r m m u f

f ler , to im p riso n m e n t f

o r th irtyy e a rs. In th e c a se o f h is se c o n d o r su b se q u e n t co n v ictio n u n d e r th is su b se c tio n , su c h p e rso n sh a ll b e se n ten c e d to im p ri so n m en t f

o r tw en ty y ea rs, an d if t h e f ir ea rm11 is a m a c h in e g u n , o r a d e stru c ti v e d e v ice , o r is eq u ipp ed w ith a f

ir ea rm sil en ce r or f

ir ea rm m uffl er , t o l i fe i m pr i so n m entw i t houtr el eas e. N ot w i t hs t andi ng anyot herpr ovi s i on of law , t he cour ts hal l notpl ace on pr obat i on ors us pend the s ent ence of anyper s on convi ct ed of a vi ol at i on of t h is s u b s e c tio n , n o r s h a l lt h e t e r m of i m pr is onm ent

i m pos ed under t his s ubs ect i on r un concur r ent l

y w i th any othert er m of

i m pr is onm ent i ncl udi ng thati m

po sed forthe cr i m e of

vi ol ence or dr ug tr af

f i cki ng cr i m e i n w hi ch the f i r ear m w as us ed orcar r i ed

. § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 ) ( 1 9 9 6 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ).
A compar i s on of t he curr entand pr i orver s i ons of § 924( c) demonst r at es t hat t he st atut e has c ons i s t ent l ys peci fi ed a mi ni m um addi t i onal s ent ence th at m us tbe i m pos ed c o n s e c u t i v e l yt o a n yo t h e rt e r m o f i mp r i s o n me n twh e n a “ c r i me of vi ol ence ordrug tr af fick ing c r i m e” i nvol ves a fi r earm . B ut w hati s the scope of t he pr efa t or ycl aus e i n t he curr entver s i on of § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ? R ead i n cont ext , t he mo stcogent i nt erpretat i on i s t hatt he pr efa t or ycl aus e r efe r s onl yt o ot her m inim u m s ent ence s t hatm aybe i m pos ed forvi ol at i ons of § 9 2 4 (c ), n o t se p a ra te o f f e n s e s . S e e S tu d ifi n , 240 F. 3d at423- 24 ( “Exam i ni ng t he s t atut e as a w hol e, par t i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof t he l anguage o f § 924( c) and the purpos e behi nd t he 1998 a m e n d m e n ts, w e d o n o t b e liev e th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d to narr ow § 924( c) byel i m i nat i ng m andat or ycons ecut i ve sen tenc es w h ere an o ther p rov isi o n im p o ses a h igh er m an d atory m in im u m se n ten c e f

o r c o n d u c t o th e r th a n th a t d e sc rib e d in12 § 9 2 4 (c ).”) ; E as t er , 55 3 F

. 3d at52 5-26. Th e prefat orycl ause w as added i n 1998 t o r efl ectt he r eor gani zat i on o f the s t atut e, w h ich m o v e d a ltern a tiv e m in im u m se n ten c e s in to se p a ra te s u b s e c tio n s . S e e S tu d ifi n , 240 F. 3d at423 ( “W e agr ee w i t h t he A la n izcour tt hati n l i ghtof t he s t ructur e and l anguage of § 9 2 4 (c )(1 ), itis c lea r th a t th e ‘e x c e p t to th e e x ten t’ lan g u a g e is d e s i g n e d t o ‘ l i n k t h e r e ma i n i n g p r e f a t o r y l a n g u a g e i n ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) t o’ t he others ubdi vi s i ons . ”) ( quot i ng A la n iz , 2 3 5 F

. 3 d at 38 9 ). For exampl e, t he 1998 amendm ent m ade br andi s hi ng a w eapon d u ri n g a pr edi cat e off

ens e s ubj ectt o a s even- y earm i ni m um s ent ence underi t s ow n s ubs ect i on, § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i )

. B uti f t he w e a p o n h a p p e n s to b e a sh o rt-b a rre led rif le, § 9 2 4 (c )(1 )(A )(i) p re sc rib e s a ten -y e a r m in im u m . T h e p re f a to ryc lau se sim p ly m a k e s c le a r t h a t th e te n -ye a r m in im u m a p p lie s . I n r efe r r i ng t o al t ernati v e m i ni m um s ent ence s , t he pr efa t or ycl aus e ment i ons “any ot her pr ovi s i on of l aw ” t o al l ow fo r ad d it ion al § 9 2 4 (c) sen tenc es that m ay b e c o d ifi ed elsew h ere i n t h e fu t ur e – i n t h e s a me wa y , f o re x a mp l e , t h a t1 8 U. S

. C. § 924 pr es cr i bes a s ent ence forvi ol ati o n s o f 18 U

. S. C

. § 922. See § 9 2 4 (a)(2) (“W h o everknow i ngl yvi ol at es s ubs ect ion (a)(6), ( d) , ( g) , ( h) , ( i ) , (

j ) , or ( o) of [18 U

. S. C § 922] s hal l be fi ned as pr ovi ded i n t hi s t i t l e, i m pr i s oned notm or e than 10 y ear s , or b o th .” ). See al

s o C ol l i ns , 2 0 5 F e d . A p p x . at 1 9 7

- 9 8 (“ [ T h is l anguage ] pr ovi des a s afe t yval ve thatw oul d p res er ve the appl i cabi l i t yof any ot her pr ovi s i ons t hatcoul d i m pos e an e ven g reat erm i ni m um cons ecut i ve s ent ence fora vi ol at i on of § 924( c)

. ”) ( quot i ng S tu d ifi n , 2 4 0 F .3 d a t 4 2 3 ).
O uri nt erpr et at ion i s notonl ycons i s t entw i t h t he over w hel m i ng m aj ori t yof cour t s t hathave a ddr es s ed the13 qu esti on, butm or e i m por t ant l y , amel i or at es confus i on ar i s i ng fr om C ongr es s ’ fai l ur e t o s t at e expl i ci t l yt he off ens es t o w hi ch the pr efa t or ycl aus e r efe r s . I n W h itle y , t he S econ d C i rcuit emphasi zed thi s s i l ence i n di ver gi ng fr om ours i s t erci r cui t s and hol di ng t hatt he pr efa t or y clau se re fer s t o any o f f e n s e . See W hi t l ey , 5 2 9 F

. 3 d at 15 8

. T o test o u r in terpretati o n o f § 9 2 4 (c), w e tu rn to W

hi t l ey and otherpo ssi ble i nterpret at i on s.

B.
R eadi ng t he pre fa t or ycl aus e l i t er al l yand i n i s ol at i on fr om i t s s ur r oundi ng l angu ag e, defe ndant s have a r gued that § 9 24 (c) do es not applyw hen a predi c a te o f fense carr i es a m i ni m um s ent ence gr eat er t han t he r el evant m i ni m um i m pos ed b y§ § 9 2 4 (c ) ( 1 ) ( A )( i) -( iii) o r ( B )- (C ). See, e. g. , P ar ker , 549 F .3 d a t 1 0 -1 1 ; A la n iz , 2 3 5 F .3 d a t 3 8 6 . U n d e r th is i nt erpr et at i on, a def

endantw ho br andi s hes a fi r earm dur i ng a d ru g tra f f ick in g o f f e n se w ith a ten -y e a r m in im u m se n ten c e is nots ubj ectt o § 924( c) beca us e, even t hough t he el ement s of t he s t atut e ar e s at i s fi ed, t he drug cr i m e’ s t en- y earm i ni m um cons t i tut es “a gr eat er m inimum s ent ence ” than the s even- y ear m inim u m o f § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(A )(i i)

. T hi s i nt erpr et at i on i s “s us pecton it s fac e” f ors ever al re a s o n s . P ar ker , 54 9 F

. 3d at 11

. Ini t i al l y , t he p refat orycl ause re f e rs to , in tera lia , gr eat er m i ni m um s ent ence s “pr ovi ded by t hi s s ubs ect i on, ” notforpr edi ca te offens es . Second, t he m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e s s p e c i f i e d b y § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) a p p l y “ i n addi t i on to t he puni s hm ent pr ovi ded for ” a pr edi cat e off ens e. T hus , t he pr efa t or y claus e r equi r es a compar i s on betw een the mi ni m um s ent ence s s peci fi ed i n §§ 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i )

- ( i i i ) and ( B )

- ( C ) , and,14 ata mi ni m um , ot her s as s oci at ed w i t h using , car r y i ng, or p o s s e s s i n g a f

i r e a r m — not t he pre di cat e offens e i t s el f. T hi r d, r eadi ng t he prefa torycl aus e t o r efe rt o t he mi ni m um s ent ence f o r a p re d ica te o f

f e n s e w o u ld n a rro w th e sc o p e o f § 9 2 4 (c ) in der ogat i on of C ongr es s ’ i n t entt o br oaden the s t atut e’ s r eac h th ro u g h th e 1 9 9 8 a m e n d m e n t.
T h a t th e p re f

a to ryc lau se c a n n o t re f e r to a p re d ica te off ense i s borne o ut byt he fo l l ow i ng hypo t heti cal

. S up po se defe ndantA i s convi ct ed of a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e thatcarr i es a m in im u m se n ten c e o f se v e n y e a rs im p ri so n m e n t w h ile defe ndantB i s convi ct ed of a m or e s er i ous drug t r aff i cki ng c r i me t h a tma n d a t e s a tl e a s tt e n y e a r s i mp r i s o n me n t

. As s u me also that b o th d ef

en d an ts are co n v ict ed o f b ran d ishing a f ir ea rm under§ 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , w hi ch ca rri es a se ven- y earm i ni m um s ent ence . D efe ndantA — w ho comm i t t ed the l es s s er i ous drug tr af fick ing crim e — w il l sp en d at least fo u rt ee n y ea rs i n jai l ( a s even- y earm i ni m um s ent ence for t he drug offens e fol l ow ed by atl eas ta s even- y earcons ecut i ve s ent ence under § 924( c) )

. Y et defe ndantB — w ho comm i t t ed the more seri ous drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e — w oul d fac e a mandat or y m i ni m um s ent ence of onl y t en y ear s . A s t hi s hypot het i cal i l l us t r at es , a de fe n d ant convi ct ed of a pr edi cat e off ens e w i t h a mi ni m um s ent ence one day l ongerth a n th e re lev a n t m in im u m u n d e r § 9 2 4 (c ) w o u ld escape an y furt her pun i shm ent w hil e a def end ant w ho se predi cat e off

ense carr i es ex a c t l

y th e s a me m i ni m um s ent ence pr o v ided by§ 924( c) s ees hi s t ot al s ent ence atl eas tdoubl ed. W e a re c o n fid en t th a t C o n g ress d id n o t i n tend su ch a b izarre r es ul t

. I ndeed, every cour t t o cons i der t hi s ar gum enthas re je c te d it. S e e E a s te r, 5 5 3 F .3 d a t 5 2 5 -2 7 ; P ar ker , 549 F. 3d at15 1 0 -1 2 ; A la n iz , 2 3 5 F .3 d a t 3 8 9 -9 0 ; S tu d ifi n , 240 F. 3d at420- 24; J o live tte , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 5 8 6 -8 7 ; C ol l i ns , 205 Fed. A ppx. at197- 98.
A lth o u g h itis cl ea r t h at a se n tenc e im p o s ed fo r a pr edi cat e off

ens e ca nnots uppl antorabr ogat e the m inimum se n ten c e s p e c if

ied f o r a v io latio n o f

§ 9 2 4 (c ), A b b o tt’s c a se is compl i cat ed by t he fact t hat i n addi t i on t o drug t r aff i cki ng and pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm i n fur t her ance of t hatoffen se, he w as al s o convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on under§ 922( g) and A C C A

. A C C A i m pos es i t s ow n fi ft een- y ear m i ni m um s ent en ce w hi ch, forpurpos es of § 924( c) , m i ghtbe cons t rued as “a gr eat erm i ni m um s ent ence [] ot herw i s e pr ovi ded byt hi s s ubs ect i on orbyanyot herpr ovi s i on of l aw . ” Ther efor e, w e n e x t co n sid e r w h e th e r th e p re f a to ryc lau se m a y re f

e r to s e n te n c e s im p o s e d u n d e r A C C A o r a n o th e r s ta tu te

. A s t he Second Ci r cui tC our t n o t ed i n adopt i ng s uch an interpr etati o n , itw o u ld b e log ical fo r C o n g ress to “ p rov ide[ ] a ser i es of i ncreased mi ni m um sent ences [u nd er § 924 (c) ] and al so to [ m a k e ] a re a so n e d ju d g m e n t th a t w h e re a d e f e n d a n t is expos ed t o t w o m i ni m um s ent ence s . . . on l yt he hi gher m i ni m um s houl d appl y . ” W hi t l ey , 529 F. 3d at155. I nt erpr et i ng t he pr efa t or ycl aus e t o r efe rt o hi gherm i ni m um s ent ence s i m pos ed byA C C A oranothers t atut e avoi ds so m e of t he p ro b lem s c ited a b o v e . L ik e th e m in im u m se n ten c e s s p e c if ied in § 924( c) , A C C A ’ s m i ni m um m ay be deemed “i n addi t i on t o” the sen tenc e im p o sed fo r a § 9 2 4 (c) p red icate o ff en se. M o reo v er, re a d in g th e p re f

a to ry c lau se to e n c o m p a ss su c h se n ten c e s w o u ld notnarr ow t he s cope of

pr edi cat e off

ens es el i gi bl e forenhanc ed p u n ish m e n t u n d e r § 9 2 4 (c ). A s w e sh a ll ex p lain , h o w e v e r, th is16 i nt erpr et at i on al s o l eads t o hi ghl yanomal ous r es ul t s , i l l us t r at i ng w hyi thas been w i del yr ej ect ed.
In this c as e, as i n W

hi t l ey , t he i ncongrui t ycaus ed by in ter p re tin g th e p re f

a to ryc lau se to re f

e r to se p a ra te o f

f e n se s is n o tr e a d i l ya p p a r e n t

. Th e mi n i mu m s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d b yACCA h a p p e n s to b e e x a c tly f

iv e y e a rs m o re th a n th e se n ten c e A b b o tt r ece i ved forhi s pr edi cat e drug offe ns es , w hi ch guar ant ees t hat A bbot tw i l l s er ve atl eas tt he mi ni m um amount of t i m e bey ond his pr e di c a t e s e nt e nc e s c a l l e d fo r by § 92 4( c )

— fi ve y ears — e v e n w ith o u t a s e p a ra te s e n ten c e u n d e r § 9 2 4 (c ). B u t w h a t if A b b o tt h a d b ra n d ish e d th e f ire a rm , w h ich w o u ld su b jec t h im to a s even- y ear m i ni m um under§ 924( c) ? A bbot tw oul d fac e a ne t m i ni m um s ent ence of o n ly fi ft een y ear s , des pi t e the fa ctt hat § 924( c) di ct at es a mi ni m um of s even y ear s bey ond hi s t en- y ear drug s ent ence s . E ven m or e i ncongruous l y , a def endants i tuat ed i den t i cal l y t o A bb ottbu tw ho w as notan arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal w oul d be s ubj ectt o a hars herm in im u m se n ten c e th a n A b b o tt — t en y ear s fort he drug offe ns e pl u s atl eas ts even c ons ecut i veA s a fi nal exampl e, w hati f A bbot t had been s ent ence d 4 to thirtyy ea rs fo r his d rug o ff en se? U n d er the S ec o n d C ir cu it ’s in ter p re tatio n , A C C A ’s f if tee n -y e a r m in im u m w o u ld still pr e e mpt § 9 2 4 ( c ) ’ s f

i v e - y e a r mi n i mum. Abb o t t wou l d t hus e sc a p e a n y a d d iti o n a l p u n ish m e n t m e re lyb e c a u se h is p re d ica te s ent ence farexce eded the al t ernat i ve mi ni m um pr ovi de by A C C A . T h is w o u ld b e c o n tra ryto C o n g re ss ’ c lea r in ten t in § 9 2 4 ( c ) t o g u a r a n t e e a mi n i mu m a mo u n to f a d d i t i o n a l j a i l t i me bey ond t hats er ved fora pr edi cat e off ens e. 17 y e a rs u n d e r § 9 2 4 (c ). S e e S tu d ifi n , 2 4 0 F .3 d a t 4 2 3 (n o tin g th is an o m aly ). 4
I n Whi t l ey , t he S econ d C i rcui tw as und aun t ed b yt hese anomal ous cons equenc es beca us e di s t r i ctj u d g e s h a v e di s cr et i on t o i ncr eas e a s ent ence . 529 F. 3 d at 1 5 8

. T hi s vi ew as ks t oo m uch becau se i tfi xes t he st atute as ill o g ica l and ano m al ou s, t hen pos i t s an ad hoc s ol ut i on i n eac h i ndi v idual cas e. M or eover , t he purpor t ed “s ol ut i on” w as i m pos s i bl e i n 1998 w hen t he prefat ory cl ause w as w ri t t en i nto t he st atute; C on gress co u ld nothave i nt ended t o cr eat e s uch s ent enci ng di s par i t i es w i t h t he cl ai r voy an t expect at i on t hats even y ear s l at ert he Supr eme C our tw oul d, i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 542 U

. S. 220 ( 2005), gr antdi s t r i ctj udges t he di s cr et i on t o cur e s uch in ju s tic e s . N everth e l es s , t he Second Ci r cui tj us t i fi ed depa r t i ng fr om ours i s t erci r cui t s beca us e, i n i t s m i nd, t he r es ul ti s d ict ated by th e “ p la in ” la n g u a g e o f

th e s ta tu te

. See W

hi t l ey , 529 F. 3d at156 (concl ud i ng t hat ot her cou rt s have “rew ri t t en t he ‘excep t ’ cl ause18 i n di ffe r entw ay s t o es cape i t s pl ai n m eani ng”)

. E ven i f t he l a n g u a g e o f

t h e s t a tu t e p l a i n l ys u p p o r t e d t h i s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n , we w oul d be l oathe t o adopti tbecau s e “s t atut or yi nt erpr et at i ons ‘w h ich w o u ld p ro d u c e a b su rd re s u lt s a r e to b e a v o id e d if a l t e rna t i ve i nt e rpr et at i on s consi st ent w i t h the l egis l at i ve p urpose a r e a v a i l a bl e. ’ ” Fi rs tMe r c h a n t s Ac c e p t a n c e Co r

p . v . J

. C. B r adf or d & Co. , 1 9 8 F .3 d 3 9 4 , 4 0 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( quot i ng G r i f f i n v. O ceani c C ontr act ors , I nc . , 4 5 8 U

. S

. 5 6 4 , 5 7 5 (19 8 2 )). See al s o Lam i e v. U

ni t ed Stat es Trus t ee , 540 U

. S

. 5 2 6 , 534 ( 2004) ( “I t i s w el l es t abl i s hed thatw hen the s t atut e’ s l anguage is pl ai n, t he s ol e func t i on of t he court s – atl eas tw her e the dis po si t i on re q u ire d by the t extis not absurd – is to e n f

o rc e it acc or di ng t o i t s t er m s . ”) ( emphasi s added and i nt ernal quot at i on o m itted).
W e e m p h a siz e , h o w e v e r, th a t th e lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te do es notpl ai nl ys uppor tt he W hi t l ey cour t ’ s i nt erp ret at i on. Al t h ou gh i ti s o b v i o u s t h a tt h e p r e f a t o r yc l a u s e h a s s o me lim iti n g e f

f e c t, i ts la n g u a g e d o e s n o t p lain lysu g g e st th a t a s e n t e n c e u n d e r§ 9 2 4 ( c ) m a y b e a b r o g a t e d o rs u p p l a n t e d b y a gr eat erm i ni m um s ent ence t hathappens t o be i m pos ed foran ent i r el y s epar at e offens e. A ccor di ng t o t he pr efa t or ycl aus e, t he s ent ence s enumer at ed i n § 924( c) ( 1) ( A )

- ( C ) do notappl yw hen

“ a g r e a t e r m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e i s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d ” b y l a w. T hi s does not n ec essar i l ym ean “ w hen a gr eat erm i ni m um s ent ence f

o ra ny o th e rc r i me i s ot herw i s e pr ovi ded byl aw . ” See Parker , 549 F. 3d at11 ( “The [pr efa t or y ] cl aus e . . . does not s ay‘ a gr eat erm i ni m um s ent ence ’ forw hat ; y et it h as t o have s om e und erstoo d r efe r entt o be i nt el l i gi bl e. H er e, t he r efe r ent coul d be ‘ anyot hercr i m e r el at ed t o t hi s cas e’ or ‘ t he under l y i ng d ru g c ri m e o r c ri m e o f

v io le n c e .’ E ith e r o f

th o s e re a d in g s . . .N orcan t he pr efa t or ycl aus e be vi ew ed as author i zi ng 5 i ncr eme n t al s ent enci ng enhanc ement s . Fi r s t , s uch an i nt erpr et at i on i s i m pos s i bl e t o r econc i l e w i t h t he mandat e that § 924( c) s ent ence s m us trun cons ecut i vel yt o a llothersent ences. See § 924( c) ( 1) ( D ) ( i i )

. I f C ongr es s w ant ed t o es t abl i s h a net m i ni m um sen te nce c om bi ni ng pr edi cat e off ens es and § 924( c) offe ns es , i tw oul d hav e req ui r ed § 924( c) s ent ence s t o run con secut i velyt o t heirpredi cat es, rather t han al l othersent ences. S econ d, t here is no ba si s i n the t ext of § 9 24 (c) t o im po se in c re m e n tal m in im u m se n ten c e s le ss th a n th o se sp e c if ica lly e n u m e ra ted in § § 9 2 4 (c )(1 )(A )-(C ). T h e lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te ma k e s c l e a rt h a t§ 9 2 4 ( c ) d e f i n e s a s e p a r a t e o f

f e n s e wi t h i t s o wn m in im u m se n ten c e , ind e p e n d e n t o f a n yo th e r o f

f e n se o r its m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e a n d p r o h i b i t e d f r o m ru n n i n g c o n c u r r e n t l y. See East er , 553 F. 3d at526 ( “[Sec t i on] 924( c) does notdefi ne a n e n h a n c e m e n t, it d e f

in e s a sta n d a lo n e c rim e , a n d th e p e n a lty i m pos ed underi tm us tbe i m pos ed t o run cons ecuti v ely t o any 19 re q u ire re a d in g in to th e c lau se a re f e r e n t n o t li ter a lly expr es s ed. ”)

. T o t he contr ary , atl eas tone courthas found t hat t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e p r e f a t o r y c l a u s e p l a i n l y r ef

ut es t he Second C ir c u it’ s in te rp re ta tio n . See East er , 553 F. 3d at5 26 ( “I n t he c o n t estbetw een reading t he [p refat ory ] cl ause t o refer t o penal t i es fort he off

ens e i n questi o n o r t o penal t i es forany o f f e n s e a t a ll, w e b e lie v e th e f o rm e r i s th e m o s t n a tu ra l.” ).
Re a d i n g t h e p r e f

a t o r yc l a u s e i n c o n t e x ta s we mus t , we agr ee w i t h t he maj or i t yof cour t s t hatt he “e xcept ” l ang u age connot es a compar i s on betw een al t ernat i ve mi ni m um s ent ence s f o r a v io latio n o f

§ 9 2 4 (c ), n o t b e tw e e n se n ten c e s f o r se p a ra te vi ol at i ons of § 924( c) and anothers t atut e. 5ot hers ent ence . ”) ( ci t i ng H ar r is v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 536 U

. S. 545, 5 5 3 (2 0 0 2 ))

. 20 C.
In lig h t o f th e a f

o re m e n tio n e d p ro b lem s a ss o c iate d w ith anyot herr eadi ng of § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) , w e conc l ude thatt he pr efa t or ycl aus e r efe r s on ly to a l t ernat i ve mi ni m um s ent ence s forvi ol at i ons of § 924( c)

. T her efor e, t he D i s t r i ct C our t di d not errbyi m pos i ng a cons ecut i ve fi ve- y ears ent ence . I V.
W e tur n now t o t he cons t i tut i onal it y of t he s ear ch w ar r ant

. I n Y

b a rr a v . Ill in o is , 4 4 4 U. S

. 8 5 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , t h e S u p r e me C our thel d t hatpol i ce e xecut i ng a w arr antauthor i zi ng t he s ear ch of a ba rfornar cot i cs l acke d pr obabl e caus e t o s ear ch i ndi vi dual p a tro n s w ith in th e b a r. T h e C o u rt sta ted : W her e the s t andar d i s pr obabl e ca us e, a s ear ch or se izu re o f

a p e rso n m u st be su p p o rte d b yp ro b a b le caus e part icul ar i zed w i t h r es pectt o t hatper s on. T hi s r equi r ement cannotbe under cuto ravoi ded b y sim p ly p o in tin g to th e f a c t th a t co in c id e n tally t her e exi s t s pr ob ab le caus e t o s ear ch ors ei ze anot herort o s ear ch the pr em is es w her e the per s on m ayhappen t o be.
I d. a t 9 1

.21 Se i z i n g o n t h i s l a n g u a g e , Abb o t ta r g u e s t h a tp o l i ce lac ked probab l e cause to sear ch h i m becau se t his case is “per fec t l y anal ogous t o Y ba rra . ” H ow ever , t he s ear ch w arr ant i n Y ba rra re f

erred o n lyto the p rem ises it self a n d the C o u rt ex p resslyd ec li n ed to co n side r a situ ati o n li k e A b b o tt’s , w h ere “the w ar r ant

. . . author i zes t he sea r ch of unnamed per s ons i n a pl ace and i s s uppor t ed bypr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatper s ons w h o w ill b e in th e p lac e a t th e tim e o f th e se a rc h w ill b e in p o s s es s i on of i l l egal drugs . ” I d. at92 n. 4. M oreove r, A bb ott w as sear ched i n a p ri vate r esi den ce, no ti n a p ub l i c bu si ness. A l t hough t he Supr eme Court has not addr es s ed the i s s ue, t hi s C our thas pr evi ous l yi nt i m at ed thatw arr ant s author i zi ng t he se a rc h o f a ll p e rso n s p re se n t m a yb e c o n stitu tio n a l in c e rta in c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See D oe v. G r oody , 3 6 1 F

. 3 d 2 3 2 , 2 3 9 (3d C ir

. 2004) ( concl u d ing thati f a s ear ch w arr antw as r ead i n l i ghtof t he off i cer ’ s r eques tt o s ear ch “a l l occupa nt s ” of the r es i dence , “then pol i ce ha d l egal author i t yt o s ear ch anybodyt hatt hey e n c o u n t e r e d i n s i d e t h e h o u s e whe n t h e y c a me t o e x e cut e t he w ar r ant ”)

. C ons i s t entw i t h D oe and tw o of ours i s t ercour t s of appea l s , w e now hol d t hata w arr antm ayauthor i ze the s ear ch of a ll p e r s o n s p r e se n t if th e re is p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t a p re m is e s is d e d ic a te d to c ri m in a l a c tiv ity. S e e O w e n s v . L o tt , 372 F. 3d 267, 276 ( 4t h C i r . 2004) ( “A n ‘ al l per s ons ’ w arr antcan pas s cons t i tut i onal m us t eri f t he af fi davi tand i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded t o t he magi s t r at e s uppl yenough det ai l ed i nfor m at i on t o establ i s h pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatal l per s ons on t he pr emi s es att he t i m e of the s ear ch ar e i nvol ved i n t he cr i m i nal a c tiv ity .”); cf

. Mar ks v. C l ar ke , 102 F

. 3 d 1 0 12 ( 9t h C i r . 1997) (“A n all p erso n s p re s e n t w arran t m igh t be a p p rop ri ate f o r a di ffe r entki nd of l ocal e – one dedi cat ed exc l us i vel yt o cr i m i nal22 act i vi t y– forexampl e, a bui l di ng orapart m entus ed as a cr ack ho use, a barn u sed as a m et ham ph et a m i ne lab, or a w arehou se us ed exc l us i vel yas a s t or age pl ace forar m s . ”) . T he i s s ue on appe al i s notw het h er the s ear ch w arr ant w a s f a c iallyin v a lid , b u t w h e th e r it w a s s u p p o r te d b yp ro b a b le caus e w i t h r es pect t o al l per s ons pr es ent

. See O w ens , 372 F. 3d a t 2 7 6 (“ In o u r v iew , th e in c lu sio n o f ‘a ll p e rso n s’ la n g u a g e in a w a rra n t p re se n ts pr o b a b le c a u se iss u e s ra th e r th a n p a rticu lar ity pr obl ems. ”)

. H er e, t he af fi davi ts uppor t i ng t he s ear ch w arr ant for1739 Font ai n St r eet des cr i bed G r antl oi t er i ng i n fr ontof t he hous e, m ee ti n g w i t h t he i nfor m ant , t aki ng hi s m oney , ent er i ng th e h o u se , re tu rn in g w ith h e ro in , an d g iv in g it t o th e in f o rm a n t, al l underpol i ce s ur v ei l l ance . T he off i cerw ho compl et ed the a f f id a v it sta ted th a t in h is e x p e rie n c e , “d e f e n d a n ts [ ] f

re q u e n tly se ll an d sta sh n a rc o tics f ro m in sid e a lo c a tio n .” B e c a u se th is is s uffi ci entt o es tabli s h pr obabl e ca us e thatt he hous e w as bei ng us ed for a cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e, t he s ear ch of a l l per s ons pr es ent i ns i de t he hous e w as j us t i fi ed.
A bbot t ar gues t hat t he pot ent i al forfami l yorgues t s t o be pr es ent negat es pr obabl e caus e w i th r es pectt o every per s on w ho c o u ld b e in th e h o u s e . See M ar ks , 1 0 2 F

. 3 d a t 1 0 2 9 (“[ W ]e bel i ev e t h a t a warr a n t t o s e a r c h ‘ a l l p e r s o n s p r e s e n t ’ for evi dence of a cr i m e m ay onl y be obt ai ned w hen t her e i s r eas on t o bel i eve thatal l t hos e pr es ent w i l l be part i ci pant s i n t he su sp e c ted c rim in a l a c tiv ity . T h a t . . . w o u ld n o t b e th e c a se w ith re sp e c t to a ra id o n a n yf a m ilyh o m e w h e re in n o c e n t f a m ily m e m b e rs o r f

rie n d s m ig h t b e re sid in g o r v isitin g .”); O w ens , 372 F. 3d at2 7 6 (“T h[e] gener al i zat i on [t hats ubj ect s pr es entatt he sc e n e o f a n ill e g a l d ru g d istrib u tio n c o m m o n ly ha v e d ru g s in23 t h ei rpos s es s i on] w as and i s undoubt edl yt rue, buti tdi d not pr ovi de t he ki nd of par t i cul ar i zed i nfor m at i on t hat w oul d have per m i t t ed the magi s t r at e t o r eas onabl y concl ude t hatt her e w as a fa i rpr obabi l i t yt hatanyper s on s een byoff icers on the pr emi s es w as t her e t o par t ake i n one si de of a drug t r ans act i on oranother

. ”)

. W e di s agr ee. T h e c a s e s u p o n w h ich A b b o tt relie s a re f a c tu a lly d is tin g u is h a b le f

ro m th e p re s e n t ca s e . M ar ks i nvol ved a s ear ch fors t ol en pr oper t y( el ectr oni cs equi pm ent ) i n t w o r es i d ences hous i ng a l ar ge ext ended f ami l yw i t h m anychi l dr en, and i tw as unl i kel yt hatt he su bjectof t he s ear ch w oul d be found on a per s on. 1 0 2 F. 3d at1019- 20. B ycontr as t , t he s ear ch w arr ant f o r 1 7 3 0 F o n tain S tre e t w a s ta rg e ted a t d ru g s w h ich c o u ld e a sily be conc eal ed on t h e p erson of any one pr es entas w el l as i n t he P re m is e s . O w ens i n v o l v e d t h e s e a r c h o f a s i n g l e - f

a mi l yh o me b ase d o n a n in fo rm an t’ s u n su b stan ti ated ti p that d rug s w ere bei ng s ol d t her e, w i t houtpol i ce s ur vei l l ance of i l l egal tr a n s a c tio n s . 3 7 2 F .3 d a t 2 7 1 -7 2 . In d e e d , O w ens s p e c if ica lly not ed t hat pr obabl e caus e t o s ear ch al l per s ons pr es ent m ight h a v e a rise n if “ [ t]h e re w a s [ a n ] in d ica tio n , fo r e x a m p le, th a t th is par t i cular res i dence had a hi s t or yof drug- r el at ed ac t i vi t i es or th a t k n o w n d r u g d e a le rs o r u s e rs w e re f re q u e n tin g th e p la c e .” 3 7 2 F .3 d a t 2 7 8 . T h a t w a s p re c is e ly th e c a s e h e re . F in a lly , to th e e x ten t th a t M ar ks and O w ens m aybe r ead t o s ugges tt hatobs er vi ng a drug deal err etr i eve drugs fr om in sid e a p riv a te r e sid e n c e d o e s n o t es tab lish p ro b a b le c a u se to o b t a i n a wa r r a n tt o s e a r c h t h o s e p r e s e n ti n t h a tr e s i d e n c e , we r ej ectt hati m pl i cat i on. T o hol d ot herw i s e w oul d evi s cer at e the ut i l i t yof “a l l per s ons pr es ent ” s ear ch w arr ant s , al l ow i ng drugW e a lso re jec t A b b o tt’s a rg u m e n t th a t ev id e n c e o f h is 6 pr i or arr es t for s el l i ng drugs at t he s ame l ocat i on, w hi ch t he G o v e rn m e n t o f

f e re d to sh o w k n o w led g e o r in ten t u n d e r R u le 404( b) , w as unfai r l ypr ej udi ci al

. T h e D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n det er m i ni ng t hat th e proba t i ve val ue of th is te s tim o n yo u tw e ig h e d its p o te n tia l p r e ju d ic e . See F ED
. R. E V ID . 4 0 3 ; U

nit ed S tate s v. G i van , 320 F. 3d 452, 460- 61 ( 3d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( u p h o l d i n g t h e a d mi s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e o f

p r i o rdr ug c o n v ic tio n u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ))

. 24 deal er s t o pl yt hei rw ar es as G r antand A bbot tdi d her e. D rug d e a l e r s c o u l d s e tu p s h o p i n a n yh o u s e , c o n f i d e n ti n t he know l edge thatt hei rcontr aband i s nots ubj ect t o s ei zur e s o l ong as i ti s pos s es s ed byuni dent i fi abl e i ndi vi dual s i ns i de the hous e. B eca us e the pol i ce had pr obabl e caus e t o s ear ch per s ons i ns i de t he Pr emi s es , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not err in de ny i ng A b b o tt’s m o tio n to su p p re ss p h y sic a l e v id e n c e f o u n d o n h is per s on. 6 I V.
For t he for egoi ng r eas ons w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm ent o f th e D istric t C o u rt.