District ju dgefor the Ea stern District of Loui sian a, sittin g bydesi gn atio n. * 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 11222

U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la in tiff-A p p e lle e , ve r s us L O U IS M O O D Y , a ls o k n o w n a s Y o u n g s ta ; D E T R O IT H IN E S , a ls o k n o w n a s L i’ l N u t; D E R R IC KW O O D A R D , D e fe n d a n ts -A p p e lla n ts
.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas

B ef ore SM ITH an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es, an d E N G E L H A R D T , D i st ri ctJu dg e. * JE R R YE

. SM ITH , C i rcui tJu dg e:
L ou i s M oody , D et roi tH i n es , an d D erri ck W ooda rd w ere c on vi ct ed of cr i m es
r e l a t e d t o i l l e g a ld r u gs a l e s . T h e ya p p e a l , a n d w e a f f i r m. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkTh e area is calle d th e Fish Bowl because of th e l ayout of th e stre ets, which strongly 1 resembl es abowl shape. Th ere are only two ro ads in and out of th e Fish Bowl , w hich were mo nitor edb ylooko uts
. Wh en Fort Worth police arrivedt o st opdru go r we apo n s violation s, the lookouts al erted the nei ghborhood, making it hard tocarryout suc cessful arre sts inth at part of to wn. 2 I

. T h e d e fe n d a n ts w e r e in v o lv e d in c r a c k c o c a in e s a le s in th e “F is h B o w l,” a 1 p a rt of the P oly n eigh b orh oo d l oca ted i n ea st F ort W orth , T ex a s. T h e F ort W orth P ol i ce D epa rt m en t( “ F W P D ” ) ha d d i f f i cul t y pol i ci n g t h e F i sh B ow l , w h i ch served
a s a b a s e fo rs e v e r a l d r u gd e a le r s . O ne o f t hes e w as H ol m es , w ho so l d c r ac k i n Fort W or t h f r om 2004 t o 2 006. In itia lly , h e w o r k e d fo ra d r u gp a r tn e r s h ip co n s is t i n g o f d e fe n d a n t H in e s , h is br o t he rD ar r ylH i ne s , a nd M i c hae lLew i s. H o l m e s l at e rs t ar t e d hi s o w n dr ug busi nes s and part ner ed w i t h D ar r yland D et r oi tH i nes . W oo dar d al so s ol d dr ugs f or H ol m es. M oody , a tleaston on e kn ow n occ asi on , ref erred c u st om ers t o H i n es a n d H olm es. A l lthre e d efen d a n ts
SS a s we l la s t h e o t h e rd e a l e r s i n t h e F i s h B o wl

SS w e r e m e m be r s o f

t he Fi ve - D uc e Cr i ps , Fo ur - Tr e y Cri ps , a nd a sub se to f t he F iv e -D u c e C r ip s k n o w n a s th e P o ly w o o d C r ip s . T h e F W P D started the i r i n ve sti ga ti on i n to t h e F is h B ow ldr u g rin g w i th th e he l p of M i ch a el N u n a l l y, a form er dru g de a l er t u rn ed con fi d en ti a li n form a n t. W o r k in gw ith F W P D O ffic e rT e a g a n B r o a d w a te r , N u n a llyh e lp e d id e n tify p a r tici pa n t s. O n on e i den t i f i cat i on t ri p, M oody j oi n ed N u n al l y an d B roadw ater ; M oodyw as una w ar e t hatB r o ad w at e rw as a po l i c e o f f i c e ro rt hatN unal l y w as a c t i ng as a n i nf

o r m ant
. Br o ad w at e ra s ke d M o o dy w he r e he c o ul d b uy c r ac k, a nd M o o dy t o l d hi m t o g o t o a ho us e i n t he Po l y ne i ghb o r ho o d. At t he ho us e , N u nal l y and M oody app roached H ol m es an d t ol d h i m t h ey h ad a cust om er w h o w an t ed to pu rc h a s e “a h u n d r e d p ie c e ,” o rro u g h lyfo u rg r a m s o f c r a c k

. Bec aus e M o o dyv o uc he df o rBr o a d wa t e r , Hol m e s a gr e e d t o t he de al

. Br o ad

-Broadwat er l aterle arn ed th at “Lil’ Nut” is th e nickname for Detroit Hines, who so me- 2 times also goe s by “Little Nut.” This nickname distin guishe d him fro m hi s brother , who was refe rr edt o a s “ Big

Nut. ” 3 w atergave H ol m es $100 , an d H ol m es gave N u n al l y th e crack i n excha n ge. B roadw atergave M oody $10 f or hel pi n g broker t h e sal e. L ater , B roadw ateran d N u n al l y ret u rned t o the h ou se to bu y m ore drugs. N u n a llyp o in te d o u t t h a t “ L il’N u t,” w a s s ta n d in gin f r o n t o f th e h o m e . N u n a lly 2 att em pted t o setup a dru g bu y betw een L i l ’N u ta n d B roadw ater , bu tL i l ’N u tdec l i ne d. Br o ad w at e rt he n gav e N unal l y $1 00 t o co m pl e t e t he dea lhi m s e l f

. N unal l y ap proach ed the h ou se, g a v e L il ’ N u tt h e m on ey, an d w en ti n si de, w h ere H ol m es gave h i m a bag gi e contai n i n g cr ack. A f t er t h i s drug b u y, B roadw ater
se ar c hed t he FW PD m ug sho tf i l es forthe al i as L i l ’N ut an d d i sc ove r ed t hat t hat al i as b e lon g e d to H i n es. B roadw aterconti n u ed h i s i n vest i gati on i n t o t h e F i sh B ow ldr ug c ons pi r ac y, eve nt ual l y c oo per at i ng w i t h t he FB I , s pec i f i c al l y Spec i al A g e n t C o ffin d a ffe r . T h is b e g a n w h a t b e c a m e k n o w n a s O p e r a tio n F is h B o w l. A b o u t fiv e m o n th s la te r , F W P D O ffic e rM a r tin e z s a w H in e s “p e e l o u t” in hi s c ari n a ne i ghb o r ho o d no r t h o f t he F i s h B o w l

. M ar t i ne z pur s ue d H i ne s , w ho th rew a m eta lob j ect ou t of h i s ca r d u ri n g th e p u rsu i t. H i n es cra sh ed h i s ca r i n to
a w al land w as ar r es t ed. M ar t i nez l at erf ound th e m eta l o bj ec tH i nes had th r o w n , w h ic h w a s a h a n d g u n . M a r tin e z d id n o t in v e n t o r y t h e c a rb u t h a d it t ow ed to t h e F W P D l ot
. C of f i n da f fer even t u al l y h eard t h at t h e pol i ce w ere s t ori ng H i nes ’ s c ar , and he se ar c hed i t w i t hout a w ar r ant si x days af t er th e ini t i al cha se, l ocat i n g t h ree c el lph on es, rec ei pts, an d bil l s. Tw o m o nt hs l at e r , t he FW PD i s s ue d a s e ar c h w ar r ant f o rt he ho m e o f

a no t he r dr ug de al e r , Cal vi n Sm i t h. W he n t he w ar r antw as e xe c ut e d, H i ne s w as i nside S m i th ’ s h ou se. A ft er su rrou n d i n g th e h ou se, th e F W P D tol d the occu p a n ts t o l eave, bu tt h e y ref u sed. E ven t u al l y, t h e pol i ce f i red t ear gas i n t o t h e hou se,Th e obj ect, whichh a d cr ack co cain e re si du e onit, wa s p re su mab lyu se d eith ert o make 3 ort o smokec rack

. 4 w hi c h f o r c e d e ve r yo ne o ut s i de

. I ns i de t he y f o und an AR 15 a s s aul tr i f l e , a ha ndgu n , a glas s p ot w i th a fork i n i t, tw o b oxes of am m u n i t i on , crack cocai n e res i du e, 3 doc um ent s r el at i ng t o H i nes , and a r ap s ong. H i n es, W ooda rd, M oody , an d a vari et y of ot h ers sw ept up i n O perati on F i sh B ow li n vest i gati on w ere arrest ed an d t ri ed on drug

- rel ated charges. Th e t h ree defenda n t s w ere f

ou n d gu i l t y an d ap pea lt h ei r c on vi ct i on s orsentences.

II. A

. M oo dy appea l s hi s c onvi c t i on o f c ons pi r ac y and ai di ng and abet t i ng, al l egi ng t hat th e cou rter r ed i n notgr ant i ng hi s m ot i on f orj udgm entof

ac qui t t al based on i n suff

i ci en tevi den ce. “ W e revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof a m ot i on fo r ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l de no vo . ” Un itedS ta tes v. Klein , 5 4 3 F

. 3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 2 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (c ita tio n o m itt e d ), cer t
. den i ed , 129 S

. C t
. 138 4 ( 200 9)

. “ O u r r evi ew f or
s u ffic ie n c y o f th e ev id e n ce follow in ga co n v iction is n a rr o w . W e w il l affirm if a
r at i onalt r i erof

fac tc oul d have f

ound t hat t he e vi denc e e st abl i she d the es se nt i al elem en ts of th e offen se b ey on d a r e a s o n a b l e d ou b t. ” Id

. (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). A ll
r e as o nab l e i nfe r e nc e s a r e dr awn i n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he pr o s e c ut i o n. I d. “ [ O ] urs t and ar d o f r e vi e w do e s notcha nge i f t he ev i de nc e t hatsus t ai ns t he
con victi on i s ci rcu m stan ti a lrath er th a n direct. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Mo rga n , 505 F .3d 3 3 2 , 3 4 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) ( cita tion om itted ). M oody w as convi ct ed, un der 28 U

. S

. C

. § 841, of ai di n g an d ab et t i n g t h e di st r ibut i o n o f

c o c ai ne . “ To pr o ve t hata de fe nda nta i de d a nd a be t t e d, t he G o ve r nm e n tmus tp r o v e t h a tt h e . . . e l e m e n t s o f t h e s u b s t a n t i v e o f

fe n s e o c c u r r e d a nd th a t t h e d e fe n d a n t a s s o c ia te d w ith th e cr im in a l v e n tu r e , p u r p o s e fu llyp a r tic i-5

pa t ed i n t h e cr i m i n alact i vi t y, an d s ou gh t by hi s act i on s t o m ak e t h e ven t u re s u ccee d

. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jim enez , 50 9 F

. 3 d 68 2 , 68 9 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 7 ) (ci tati on s om i tte d ), cer t
. den i ed , 128 S

. C t
. 292 4 ( 200 8)

. “ T h e ess en t i alel em en t s of a vi ol ati on of Secti on 841 ( a) ( 1) [f

or cocai n e d i st ribu t i on ] incl u de: (1) k n ow l edg e, (2) possession , an d ( 3 ) i n ten t t o d i strib u te [coca i n e]. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Pat i no - Pr ado , 533 F .3 d 3 0 4 , 3 0 9 (5 th C ir .) (c ita tio n o m itt e d ), cer t
. den i ed , 129 S. C t
. 328 ( 20 08 )

. The und erl yi n g of

fen se oc curred w h en B roadw ate rb o ugh tdr ugs f r o m H o l m e s . M o o dy kno w i ngl y di r e c t e d c us t o m e r s t o H o l m e s , an ac t i vi t y as s o c i at i ng w i t h t he c r i m i na l v e n tu r e p e r fo r m e d fo r th e v e n tu r e to s u c c e e d

. A m p le e v id e n c e e x is ts fo rth is
c o nvi c t i o n. Ther e i s a l s o s ubs t ant i alevi den ce t o sup port M oody ’ s c o ns pi r ac y c o nvi c t i o n. T o convi ctun der 21 U

. S

. C

. § 846, t h e governm en t m u st prove “ ( 1) t h e exi st en ce of an agr e e m en tbetw een t w o or m ore persons t o vi ol ate t h e na rcot i cs l aw s, (2) th a t ea ch a l l eg ed co n sp i ra tor k n ew of th e con sp i ra cy an d i n ten d ed to j oin i t,
a n d ( 3 ) th a t each all eg ed con sp i ra tor d i d pa rti ci p a te i n the con sp i ra cy . ” Un i t ed S ta tes v. Ca n tw ell , 4 7 0 F .3 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 0 9 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). M o o d ya s s e r ts , a s a d e fe n s e , th a t h e w a s s u c h a d r u ga d d ic t t h a t h e “c o u ld
n otbe t rusted by an yon e t o di st ribu t e drug s, ” becau se i f h e g otthem , “ h e sm oked t h em up hi m sel f

. ” R egard l ess of how drug add i ct ed M oody w as, how ever, H ol m es t e s t i f i e d t hatM o o dyw as a m e m be ro f t he Fi s h Bowlc o ns pi r ac y. Thi s t e s t i m o ny al o ne i s s uf

f i c i e ntt o s upp o r tM o o dy ’ s c o nvi c t i o n.
B

. W o o d a r d wa s c o n v i c t e d , u n d e r 2 1 U. S

. C. § § 8 4 6 a n d 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d (b ) ( 1 ) (A) and ( C) , of

co ns pi r ac y t o s e l lc r ac k. H e a l l e ge s t hatt he c o ur te r r e d i n s e nt e nc i ng
w he n i tf

o und t hata pr e vi o us cr i m e co ns t i t ut e d a s e pa r at e o f fe ns e f o rs e nt e nc i ng pur po s e s . Se nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne de c i s i o ns a r e r e vi e w e d f o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n.“[I]t is an ele mentary propo sitio n, and the supportingca ses toonumero us tocite, th at 4 thisc ourtmayaff

ir m th e di strictc ourt’sj u dgme nt onanygro u n dssupp orte d b yth e re co rd .” United States v. Dunigan , 5 5 5F .3 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 8n .1 2 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9) (cit ationo mitt ed). Se e, e . g. , U

n i te dSta tesv . H

a ns ley , 54 F .3 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 7( 1 1 thC ir

. 1 9 9 5); United States 5 v. Ga rc ia , 3 2 F .3 d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 1 9 (7 th C ir

. 1 9 9 4); United States v. Baker , 10 F.3d 137 4, 1 420(9th C ir

. 1 9 9 3), overru led on ot her gro unds by Appre ndi v. New J ersey , 5 3 0U .S

. 4 6 6(2 0 0 0); United States v. Hughes , 9 2 4F .2 d 1 3 5 4 , 1 3 6 2 ( 6 thC ir

. 1 9 9 1 ). 6 Se e Uni t e d St at e s v . Rowan , 530 F

. 3d 379 , 381 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. “ T h ou gh w e revi ew a sentence f

or abu se of di scr et i on , w e revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s app l i cat i on of t h e gu i del i n es d e novo a n d its fin d in g s o f fa c t a t s e n t e n c i n g fo rcle a re r r o r .” Klein , 5 4 3 F .3 d a t 2 1 3 (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). “A n e r r o rin a p p ly in gth e g u id e lin e s is
a si gn i fi ca n t pro ced u ra lerro r tha t con sti tu tes a n ab u se o f d i scre ti on . ” Id

. ( c i t ation om itted ). U n der § 841, a defen da n tm u stbe sen t en ced t o a m i n i m u m of t en years f

or c as e s , a s her e , i nvo l vi ng f i f t y gr am s orm o r e of

co c ai ne ; i f

he ha s a pr i o rf

i naldr ug con victi on , h ow ev er, th e m i n i m u m j u m p s to tw en ty y ea rs. W oo d a rd w a s con victed i n 2001 i n st at e c our tf orfel ony dr ug pos se ss i on ; th e c our tf ound t hat t hat convic t i on invol ved d rugs, so i ten h an ced t h e sen t en ced t o 240 m on t h s. W ooda rd argu es t h a t t h e pri or c on vi ct i on w as part of t h e sam e conspi racy an d theref ore c a n n o t b e u s e d to e n h a n c e h is s e n te n c e . W e uph o l d t he us e o f t he pr i o rc o nvi c t i o n t o e nha n ce, b u t on d i f fe r e nt groun ds. O u r s i st er c i rcui t s h ave hel d t h at pri or c on vi ct i on s f or c on du cti n f

u r- 4 t h eran ce of a conspir acy can be u sed t o en h an ce t h e st atutor y pen al t y f or a l ater
ar r es tunder t he s am e c ons pi r ac y. W e agree an d als o concl u de that an ea rl i er 5
c o n v ic tio n fr o m th e s a m e co n s p ir a c yca n b e u s e d to e n h a n c e m a n d a to r ym in im um s . A de fe nda nts ho ul d no tb e ne f i ti n s e nt e nc i ng be c aus e he c o nt i nue d i n a cri m i n alenterpri se e v e n af t e rh e w a s a l r e a dy a r r e s t e da n dc o n v i c t e df o rt h e s a me ente rpri se . “ [ T ] h e pu rpose of t h e m an da t ory m i n i m u m enh an cem en ti s t o t arget7

reci di vi sm . . . , [and ] itis m ore ap propri ate to f ocus on the deg ree of cr i m i n alact i vi t y t hat oc c urs af

t er a def

endant ’ s c onvi c t i on f ordr ug- r el at ed ac t i vi t y i s f i nal
ra th er th a n w h en the con sp i ra cy b eg a n . ” Un itedS ta tes v. G a rc ia , 32 F. 3d 1017, 1019- 20 ( 7t h C i r . 1994) ( c i t at i on o m i t t ed)

. The c our tdi d noter ri n enhanci ng. W o o da r d a l s o a l l e ge s t hatt he co ur te r r e d i n s e nt e nc i ng hi m b as e d o n t he present e nc e r e po r t( “ PSR ” ) a nd i t s a dde ndum

. W e r e vi e w g ui de l i ne de c i s i on s,
w he t he ri ns i de oro ut s i de t he g ui de l i ne r ang e , f o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. S ee G a ll
v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t
. 586 , 597 ( 200 7)

. “ In perf orm i n g t h at r evi ew , w e are

‘ f i rst[ t o] ensu re t h at the di st ri ctcou rtcom m i t t ed n o si gn i f i can tprocedu ralerr or,
s u c h a s fa il in g t o c a l c u la t e (o rim p r o p e r ly c a lc u la t in g) t h e G u id e li n e s r a n g e .’” Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 517 F. 3d 801, 808 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ( c i t i ng G a ll , 1 28 S. C t
. at 597 ) ( qu ot ati on s and el l i pses om i t t ed). Findings of factare r evi ew ed f

or p la in e r r o r ; le g a l co n c lu s io n s , de no vo . See Uni t e d St at e s v. Vi l l anu e va , 408 F. 3d 1 9 3 , 2 0 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W oo d a rd be l i ev es th a t t h e cou rt sh ou l d n ot h a ve cred i ted the statem en ts
o f Aud r e y Tay l o ri n c al c ul at i ng dr ug qua nt i t y f o rs e nt e nc i ng pur po s e s . Of t he 177
. 85 gram s of

cr ack att ribu t ed t o W ooda rd i n t h e P S R , 168 gram s c am e f rom s a le s to T a y lo r . W o o d a r d p o in ts to p o li c e in fo r m a tio n th a t in d ic a te s a n o th e rd e a ler, M i l l ard Pa yn e, n ot W ooda rd, m ay h ave been i n vol ved i n t h ese s al es. Ta yl or, h ow ever, st i l lt est i f

i ed that she w as i n vol ved w i t h W ooda rd du ri n g t h e dr ug sal es. C of f i ndaf feral so pr ovi ded a st at em enti n t he PS R ’ s addendum s ayi ng t hat Tayl o r ’ s t e s t i m o ny w as cr e dibl e and t hatP ay ne w as noti nvo l ve d i n t he s al e s . The
c our tul t i m at el y r el i ed o n t hes e s t at em ent s i n det er m i ni ng dr ug quant i t y. W ooda rd bears t h e bu rden of show i n g t h at t h e i n f orm ati on t h e courtrel i ed
o n is m a te r ia llyu n tr u e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. R am i rez , 367 F

. 3d 274 , 277 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). A ls o , th e co u r t’s d e c is io n is a f in d in go f fa c t r e v ie w e d fo rp la in e r r o r . S ee V i l l anu e va , 4 08 F. 3d a t 20 2. Al t ho ugh W o o da r d no t e s c o nf l i c t i ng e vi de nc e , t heWo odard also obj ects that Taylor’s testimony involved hearsay . “[T]he district co urt 6 may con sider any re le va ntevi d en c e, inc lu din g un c or r ob or at edhe ar s ayst at em en t s, if the informatio n has a ‘suffici ent indicia of reli ability to support its probable accuracy .’” United States v. Slaughter , 2 3 8F .3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 5( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 0) (cit ationo mitt ed). Spe cific ally, he was found guiltyof six counts: (1 ) c onspiracyto possess withintent 7 to di stribute mo re than fifty gra ms of [c ocaine] in violationof 21 U.S.C. §§ 846an d 84 1(a)(1 ) and (b )( 1)(A); (2) di st ribut ion of cocai ne baseand aidin g and abett ing in violat ion of 21 U. S. C. § 8 41(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) an d 18 U.S.C. § 2; (3) felon in possession of a firearm in commerce in violationof 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1 ) an d 92 4(a); (4) unl awful possession of a firearm infurther

anc e of a drug

traffickin g crime inviol atio n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4(c); (5) another co untof felonin possessionof a firear m incommerce; and (6) anoth er c ount of possessionwithintentto distrib

ute cocaineba se. 8 c o ur tdi d no tc o m m i tpl ai n e r r o rw he n i tcr e di t e d t he ot he re vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d. Tay l o ra nd Co f

f i nda f fer ’ s s t at e m e nt s pr o vi de a m pl e s upp o r tf o rt he de c i s i o n, 6
w h ic h , w ith th e P S R ’ s fa c tu a l s u p p o r t, w a s n o t p la in e r r o r .
C

. H i n es w as charged w i t h , an d conv i ct ed of, a vari et y of cr i m es r el ati n g t o coc ai ne a n d f

i rearm s po s s e s s i o n. H e a l l e ge s s e ve r ale r r o r s . Fi r s t , he c l ai m s t he 7 court shou l d h ave su pp ress ed evi d en ce f ou n d i n hi s c ar af

t er C of f i n da f fer
s e a r c h e d i t
. “ W h e n r e v i e wi n ga r u l i n go n a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , t h e c o u r tr e v i e ws q u e s t i o n s o f

l a w d e novo a n d fi n d i n gs o f fa ct f or clear erro r. ” Un ited S ta tes v . V a lad ez , 267 F

. 3d 395 , 397 (5t h C i r. 2 001 ) (c i t ati on om i t t ed). “ W e vi ew t h e evi den ce i n th e l i gh t m ost fav ora b l e to th e p a rty th a t pre va i l ed i n the distri ct cou rt. ” Id

. (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). W e m u s t e x a m in e w h e th e rH in e s w a iv e d th is is s u e . H e d id n o t r a is e it in a pre- t ri alsup pressi on hea ri n g, bu t on l y du ri n g t ri al w h en h i s c ou n selreal i zed t h at C of f i n da f fer, an d not M art i n ez, h ad searched the car. “ [ F ] ai l u re t o rai se s pec i f i c i ss ues orar gum ent s i n pre - t r i alsuppre ss i on pr oc ee di ngs ope r at es as a w ai ver of tho se issu es o r a r g u m e n ts for a p p ea l

. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. L oon ey , 532 F. 3d 3 9 2 , 3 9 5 (5 th C ir .) ( e m p h a s is a n d cit a tio n o m itt e d ), cer t
. den i ed , 129 S. C t
. 513See Un ited Statesv . Bon il la -M

u n gia , 42 2 F .3d 3 16, 319(5th Cir . 20 05) (discussin g 8 govern me nt waiver of waiver argu me nt b ec au se it rais ed it only in supp le me ntal bri ef in g); United States v. Beckham , 96 8 F .2d 4 7, 5 4 n .5 (D.C . C ir. 1 992) (noting governme nt waiver of waiveri ssu e b ec au seo f govern me nt’ s f ailuret o b ri ef

th e is su e)

. 9 (2 0 0 8 ). For t w o r eas ons , H i nes has not w ai ved t he i ss ue f or appeal

. Fi r st , t he go vernm en tnev er argu ed t h at h e w ai ved the i ssue, so t h e governm en tha s w ai ved i ts po ten ti a lw a i ve r arg u m en t. S econd , i n adv an ce of t ri alt h e governm en tm i s- 8 st ated w h i ch poli ce of f i cer h ad searched H i n es’ s c ar, i n f orm ati on t h at w as necessa r y f ort he pr e- t r i als uppres si on m ot i on. Af t erdef ens e c ounse l r ec ogni ze d t hat error, t h e courthel d a f u l lsup pressi on hea ri n g ou t si de the j u ry’ s presence. T h eref ore, becau se H i n es d i d n oth ave al lthe n ecess ary i n f orm ati on , a n d the i ss ue w as e ve nt ual l y f ul l y l i t i ga t e d, t he s upp r e s s i o n i s s ue w as no tw aive d. H i n es c on t en ds t h at t h e searc h of hi s c ar w as un reasona bl e becau se t h ere
w as no “ ne xus ” b e t w e e n t he r e as o ns fo rhi s ar r e s ta nd t he s e ar c h t hatw o ul d s uppo r t t he w ar r ant l e s s s e ar c h. H e r e l i e s o n P res t on v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 376 U

. S. 364 ( 19 64 ) , a nd C o o

p erv. Ca lif

o rn ia , 3 86 U

. S

. 58 ( 196 7) , w h i ch h el d that “ f or a w arr ant l es s se ar c h of

an aut om obi l e underpol i c e c ont r olto b e l aw f uli tm ustbe
c lo s e lyre la te d to th e re a s o n fo rth e a r r e s t a n d th e re a s o n th e c a ris in cu s to d y .” Wi l l i am s v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 12 F. 2d 7 29 , 7 35 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 96 9)

. H i ne s b e l i e ve s t he
s e a r c h o f h is v e h ic le w a s n o t “ c lo s e lyre la te d ” t o h is a r r e s t, s o it w a s ille g a l. T h e pr e c e de nt H i ne s c i t e s i s no l o nge r t he go ve r ni ng aut ho r i t y f o r t h ese
s e ar c he s . Beg i nni ng w i t h C h am bers v. Maron ey , 399 U

. S. 4 2 ( 19 70 ) , a nd c o nt i nui ng w i t h T

ex a s v . W

h ite , 42 3 U

. S. 67 ( 19 75 ) , a nd Mi c higa n v . Tho m as , 4 58 U

. S. 25 9 ( 19 82 ) , t he ne xus r e qui r e m e ntw as l e s s e ne d a nd f i nal l y r e m o ve d. I n Un i t ed St at e s v . Jo hns , 4 6 9 U .S . 4 7 8 (1 9 8 5 ), th e m o d e r n ru le w a s s ta te d : Av eh i cl e law f

u l l y i n p ol i ce custody m ay be searched on the basi s of pr o ba bl e c aus e t o b e l i e ve t hati tco nt ai ns co nt r ab and , and t he r e i s noSee also U nited States v. McSween , 53F. 3 d 68 4 , 68 9(5thCir. 19 9 5) (“I f prob ab lec au se 9 ju stifieda warrantless se archon the roadsi de, it likewise ju stified one at the statio n after the car wa s i mp oun de d”(citationo mitt ed). ). 1 0 requ i rem en tof

exi gen tci rcum st an ces t o j u st i f y such a w arran t l ess sea rch

. . . . T h e C o u r t of A p p ea l s con cl u d ed tha t [ Uni t e d S t at e s v. R oss , 4 56 U

. S. 7 89 ( 19 82 ) ] al l o w s w ar r ant l e s s se ar c he s . . . o nl y i f t he search occ u rs ‘ i m m edi atel y’as part of t h e veh i cl e i n spect i on or ‘ soon t h ereaf t er. ’N ei t h er R oss nor ou r ot h er vehi cl e searc h cases sugg est anys uc h l i m i t at i o n. I d. a t 4 8 4 (cita tion s o m itted ). “[T ]h e ra tion a le o f C h am b er s and i t s pr o ge ny i s . . . t h at, gi ven t h e scope of t h e i n i t i ali n t rusi on caused by sei zure of an au t om o bi l e , t he r e i s no c o ns t i t u t i o naldi f f e r e nc e b e t w e e n t he pr o pe rs e ar c h o n t he h i gh w a y a n d the l a ter sea rch at th e sta ti on . ” Uni t e dS t a t e s v . S haw , 701 F. 2d 3 6 7 , 3 7 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 3 ). 9 C h am bers a n d i t s p r o g e n yh a v e o v e r r ul e d P res t on a nd C ooper , a nd t he search of

H i n es’ s car w as legal

. B ecau se M art i n ez h ad p robable cau se t o searc h t h e car af

t er H i n es f

l ed f rom p ol i ce, C of

f i n da f fer too h ad probab l e cause t o searc h i t si x d a ys l a ter f

or u n related rea son s an d w i th ou t a w a rra n t. H i n es next argues t h at t h e courterred i n d en yi n g h i s s u pp ress i on m ot i on for ev id e n ce fou n d d u rin gth e p o li ce s e a rc h o f 2 8 1 6 S a ra J a n e L a n e . In h is b rie f, h ow ever, H i n es adm i t s t h at he w as not an ow n er orrenter of t h e hou se and rec o g n iz e s th a t h e h a s n o s ta n d in gto ch a lle n g e th e s e a r c h

. H e is co r r e c t; R akas v. Illin o is , 4 3 9 U .S . 1 2 8 , 1 3 4 ( 1 9 7 8 ), h e ld t h a t “[a ] p e r s o n w h o is a g g r ie v e d b ya n ill egal search an d s ei zure on l y t h rough t h e i n t rodu ct i on of dam aging evi den ce s ecu red by a s ea rch o f a th i rd p erso n ’ s . . . pr op erty h a s n ot h a d an y o f h i s F ou rth A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts in fr in g e d .” H i n es, h ow ev er, a sse rts tha t B re n d lin v. Ca lif o rn ia , 5 51 U

. S. 2 49 , 1 27 S. C t. 2 4 0 0 (2 0 0 7 ), o v e r r u le s th is p r e c e d e n t. H e r e , h e is n o t c o r r e c t. T h e C o u r t in B re n d lin di d no tcha nge t he F o ur t h A m e ndm e ntt e s tt hatw as us e d i n R ak as b ut1 1

in s te a d re s ta te d th a t “ in v ie w o f a ll o f th e cir c u m s ta n c e s s u r r o u n d in gth e in c id e n t, a re a s o n a b le p e r s o n w o u ld h a v e b e lie v e d th a t h e w a s n o t fr e e to le a v e .” B re n d lin , 551 U

. S. at

___, 127 S. C t
. at2405 ( quot i ng Uni t e d St at e s v . Me nde nh a ll , 446 U

. S

. 544 , 554 ( 198 0) )

. Th e C ou rtapp l i ed thi s t estt o t h e passen ger of
a car a n d fou n d th a t th e p a sse n ge r w a s “seized ” un d er th e F ou rth A m en d m en t. 551 U

. S

. at ___, 127 S. C t
. at 240 6- 07. B ecau se B re n d lin d oes not exp l i ci t l y overrul e R ak as , an d t her e i s no c hange i n t he bas i c Fourt h A m endm entanal ys i s t hat l ed to R ak as , H i n es i s i n corr ectin h i s beli ef tha th e can ch al l en ge t h e w arran tdes pi t e no to w ni ng, r e nt i ng, o rl i vi ng i n t he ho m e t hatw as s e ar c he d. H i ne s cha l l e nge s B r o ad w at e r ’ s out

- o f

- c o ur ti de nt i f i c at i o n of

H i ne s and t he de ni al o f

hi s m o t i o n t o s upp r e s s t hate vi de nc e . W he n r e vi e w i ng a m o t i o n t o s uppress an eyew i t n ess i den t i f i cat i on , “ w e acceptt h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n gs of fact
u n l e s s t h e ya r e c l e a r l ye r r o n e o u s , b u twe r e v i e w d e novo t he c o ur t ’ s ul t i m at e c o ncl u sion of th e con sti tu ti on a l i ty of t h e law en forcem en t acti on . ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. G u id r y , 4 0 6 F .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 1 9 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). W h e th e ra n id e n tific a tio n is co n s tit u tio n a llya d m is s ib le is a m ix e d q u e s tio n o f fa c t a n d la w . I d. H i nes c ont ends t hat B r oadw at er ’ s out

- of

- c our ti dent i f i c at i on w as to o s ugges t i ve an d theref

ore i n ad m i ssibl e. “ T h e D u e P roces s C l au se prot ect s agai ns tt he
u se of evi den ce o btai n ed f rom i m perm i ssibl y sug gest i ve i den t i f i cat i on proced u res.” I

d. ( c i t at i on om i t t ed)

. “ Th e a dm i ss ibi l i t y o f i dent i f i c at i on e vi denc e i s gov erned by a t w o- st ep t est : F i rst , w e deter m i n e w h et h er t h e i den t i f i cat i on procedu re w as i m perm i ssivel y sug gest i ve, a n d second , w e ask w h et h er t h e procedu re p ose d a ‘ ve ry su b stan ti a ll i k eli h oo d of i rrep a ra b l e m i siden ti fi ca ti on . ’ ” I d. (ci t ati on o m i t t e d)

. I f

w e a ns w e rb o t h q ue s t i o ns i n t he a f f i r m at i ve , t he i de nt i f

i c at i o n i s i na d m is s ib le

. I

d. ( c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)

. Thi s i s kno w n as t h e B r a th w a itet est , af t er Ma n so n v. B ra th w a ite , 4 3 2 U .S

. 9 8 (19 7 7 ). W ith o u t d e c id in gw h e th e rB r o a d w a te r ’ s id e n tific a tio n w a s im p e r m is s ib lyThis court can determine wheth er an out-of-cour tidentificationmeet s theseco nd 10 Brathw ai te pron g without firs t de te rm inin g wh eth erit sati sf ie s th e firs t pron g . See Cole man v. Quarterman , 4 5 6F .3 d 5 3 7 , 5 4 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6).

See, e.g., Cole man , 456 F.3dat544 (allow ing ident ifi cat ion unde r this prong nine d ays 11 1 2 sug gest i ve, w e c o nc l ude t hati te as i l y pa s s e s t he s e c o nd B rat h w ait e pron g, be-

10
c ause i tdi d notpos e a “v er y s ubst ant i all i kel i hood o f i r r epar abl e m i si dent i f i c ati on . ” G u i d ry , 4 0 6 F .3d a t 3 1 9 (cita tion om itted ). The Supr e m e Cour tha s i de nt i f i e d s e ve r alfac t o r s t o hel p d e t e r m i ne t h e l i keli h ood of

m i si den t i f

i cat i on : ( 1) t h e opp ort u n i t y of t h e w i t n ess to view the cri m i n a l a t th e cri m e scen e; (2) th e w i tn ess ’ s d eg ree of a tte n tio n ; (3 ) th e a c c u r a c y o f th e w itn e s s ’ s p r io r d e s c r ip tio n o f th e cr im

i nal ; ( 4) t he l e ve lo f

c e r t ai nt y de m o ns t r at e d b y t he w i t ne s s a tt he c o nf r o nt at i o n; a nd ( 5) t he l e ngt h of t i m e be t w e e n t he c r i m e a nd t he c o nf r o nt at i o n. C ol em an , 4 56 F. 3d a t5 44 ( c i t i ngNei lv. B iggers , 4 0 9 U .S

. 1 8 8 , 1 9 9 -2 0 0 (19 7 2 ); L i vi ngst on v. Joh n son , 1 0 7 F .3d 2 9 7 , 3 1 0 -1 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 )). F ou r of t h e f i ve fact ors sug gestt h at there w as not a hi gh l i keli h ood of m i si d e n t i f i c a t i o n . B r o a d w a t e rh a d a n e x c e l l e n t“o p p o r t u n i t y. . . t o v i e w t h e c r i mi n alat t h e cr i m e sc en e; ” he tes t i f i ed that he h ad a un h i n dered view of H i n es du ri n g t h e d rug sal e a n d that t h e sal e t ook p l ace no f u rt h er f rom hi m t h an t h e di st an ce f rom t h e w i t n ess st an d to coun sel ’ s t able. Secon d, B roadw ater ’ s at t en t i on
w as f oc use d s ol el y o n t he drug buy, w hi c h w as t he pr i m ar y a ctiv ity t ak i n g pl ace a t th e t im e . T h ir d , B r o a d w a te re x p r e s s e d n o u n c e r ta in ty re g a r d in gh is id e n tifica ti on of H i n es’ s m u g sh ot; i t i s n ota b l e th a t alt h ou gh B roa d w a ter w a s op en w i th de fe ns e co uns e la bo uts e ve r alo t he rm i s i de nt i f i c at i o ns t hatt o o k p l ac e dur i ng t he Fi s h Bo wl o p e r a t i o n, h e n e v e rwav e r e d i n hi s i d e nt i f i c a t i o n o f

H i ne s . Fi na l l y, Bro ad w at e rt e s t i f

i e d t hathi s i de nt i f

i c at i o n was m ad e o nl y a da y o rt w o a f t e rt he drug deal , w hi c h i s fars hor t ert han t he l engt h of ti m e w e have c ons i der ed t o b e ap propri ate i n ot h er c ases. 11aft erinitial viewin go f defe n dant)

. Hin es a dmits, co rrectly, that th e governme nt does not have to accept the stipul atio n. 12 1 3 T h ese f ou r fact ors confi rm t h at t h ere i s not a sub st an t i alli keli h ood of m i si de nt i f i c at i o n f

r o m Br o ad w at e r ’ s m ug s ho tv i e w i ng. H i nes c anno tr e l y o n t he t h i rd fact orSS t he ac c urac y o f t he w i t nes s’ s pri ordes c r i pt i on o f t he c r i m i nal

SSbecau se t h ere i s no t est i m on y regardi n g B roadw ater ’ s d escr i pti on of H i n es bef

ore hi s m ug s ho ts e ar c h. Thus, B r o ad w at e r ’ s i de nt i f i c at i o n pas s e s notj us tone b ut both of t h e B ra th w a itepr o n g s, a n d H i n es’ s m ot i on t o sup press w as t h eref ore pr o pe r l y de ni e d. Fi nal l y, H i ne s ar gue s t hat t he c o ur t e r r e d w he n i ta dm i t t e d e vi de nc e a bo ut h i s p r i o rd r u ga r r e s t s u n d e rFe d e r a lRu l e o f Ev i d e n c e 4 0 4 (b )

. “ T h i s c o u r tr e v i e ws a dis t ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o adm i tR u l e 404 (b) evi den ce i n a cri m i n al case un der
a h e ig h te n e d a b u s e -o f-d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d .” Un ited S ta tes v. Mitch ell , 484 F. 3d 7 6 2 , 7 7 4 (5 th C ir .) (c ita tio n o m itt e d ), cer t
. den i ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 9 7 (2 0 0 7 ), a n dce rt. d enie d , 128 S. C t
. 8 69 ( 200 8)

. If this cou rtw ere to f

i n d error , i tw ou l d revi ew f or h a r m le s s e r r o r . I

d. ( ci t ati on om i t t ed). R u l e 404 (b) st ates: E vi denc e o f

ot hercr i m es , w r ongs , or ac t s i s notadm i ss ibl e t o pr ove t h e characterof

a p erson i n ord er to show a ct i on in con f orm i t y t h erew i t h. I tm ay, how eve r , be adm i ssible f orot herpurpo se s, s uch as proof of m ot i ve, opp o rtun i t y, i n t en t , prepa rat i on , pl an , kn ow l edg e, i den t i t y, or ab se n ce of m i st ak e or acci den t , provi ded t h at upon reque s tb y t he a c c us e d, t he pr o s e c ut i o n i n a c r i m i nalc as e s hal lpr o vi de r eas onabl e no t i c e i n advance of t r i al , orduri ng t r i ali f t he c our tex cu se s p retri alnoti ce on good cau se s h ow n , of t h e gen eralna t u re of a n ys u c h e v id e n c e it in te n d s to in tr o d u c e a t t r ia l. F ED . R. E V ID . 404 (b). T h e governm en tof

fered t est i m on y abou tH i n es’ s pri or drug arrest s over H i ne s ’ s o bj e c t i o n. H i ne s a l s o o f fe r e d t o s t i pul at e t o t he a r r e s t s , b utt he g o ve r nm e ntde c l i ne d. T h ree d i f ferent p ol i ce of

f i cers test i f

i ed ab ou tarres t i n g H i n es f or 12See United States v. S pletzer , 53 5 F .2d 9 50, 955(5th Cir. 1 976) (“I t i s tru e th at as agene ral ruleap artymaynotp re clu dehisa dver sary’sp ro of b yana dm is siono r of fe r tostipulat e.” ). “Nonethel ess, this principle, like all rul es of evidence, i s subje ct toth e provisionth at where the probative valu e of rel ev ant evidence is substantially outwei gh ed by its potentialfor unfair prej udic e, it sho uld be exclu ded.” Id

. at95 5-56
. 1 4 c r a c k p o s s e s s io n . “T h is C o u r t e m p lo y s a tw o -p r o n gte s t t o e x a m in e th e a d m is s ibi l i t y o f e xt r i ns i c e vi de nc e unde r Rul e 40 4(b)

. Fi r s t , t he Cour t m us tde t e r m i ne
w h e t h e rth e e x t r in s ic e v id e n c e is r e le v a n tto a n is s u e o t h e rth a n th e d e fe n d a n t ’s
c harac t er. . . . Sec ond the evi denc e m ustposs es s pr obat i ve val ue thati s nots ubstan ti a l l y ou tw eigh ed b y i ts u n d u e prej u d i ce . . . . ” Mo rga n , 505 F. 3d at339- 40 (cita tion s a n d in te rn a l qu o ta tion s o m itted ). The go ve r nm e nta r gue s t hatt he e vi de nc e w as r e l e va nt f o r t he f i r s tpr o ng be c aus e i tw as adm i t t e d t o sho w i de nt i t y and i nt e ntra t he rt han c har ac t e r . I nte n t is m a te r ia l t o d r u gp o s s e s s io n a n d t r a ffic k in gp r o s e c u tio n s , see Un i t ed S t ate s v . Tho m as , 348 F

. 3d 78, 86 ( 5th C i r. 200 3) , an d i n t en tcan serve as groun ds f or
r u le 4 0 4 (b ) e v id e n c e , see Mo rga n , 5 05 F. 3d a t339
. A l so , “ [ w ] he r e t he i s s ue a ddressed i s t h e defen da n t ’ s i n t en tt o com m i tt h e of fen se cha rged, t h e rel evan cy of t he e xt r i nsi c of

fens e de r i ves f

r om t he def

endant ’ s i ndu l gi ng hi m se l f i n t he s am e s ta te o f m i n d in th e p e r p e tr a tio n o f b o th th e e x tr in s ic a n d ch a r g e d o ffe n s e s .” Uni t e d St at e s v . Be e c hum , 582 F. 2d 898, 911 ( 5t h C i r . 1978) ( en banc )

. H i nes w as ar r es t ed w i t h cr ac k and c harge d w i t h i nt ent t o di st r ibut e t hat c r ac k; i nt enti s, by d e fin itio n , m a te r ia l to th is ch a r g e a n d m a k e s t h e e v id e n c e re le v a n t u n d e rru le 4 0 4 (b ). Th e g ove r nm ental so c ont ends t hat t he e vi dence w a s n eeded t o pr ove H i ne s ’ s i d e n t i t y . Du r i n gt r i a l , Hi n e s ’ s c o u n s e ln o t e d t h a tBr o a d wa t e rwa s t he
o nl y o f f i c e rw ho c o ul d i de nt i f y H i ne s s e l l i ng dr ugs , s ugg e s t i ng t hatH i ne s ’ s i de nt i t y w as i n ques t i on. Thu s, t he ar r es t s w er e a l so r el evantt o c onf i r m i dent i t y. B e c a u s e t h e e v id e n c e w a s r e le v a n t fo rid e n tit ya n d in te n t, it is a d m is s ib leSeeU n ited Statesv . Adai r , 43 6 F .3d 5 20, 527 (5th Cir. 200 6) (“We also concludeth at 13 Agent Ty so n’st es ti mo nyh a d littleo pp ortunityo f cr eatin g u nfair pr ej u diceb ec au se. . . th e di strict co urtmiti g ate d anyprej u dici al e ff ect b ygivin gth e j uryalim itin gin structio n .”); Tho mas , 3 4 8F .3 d at 8 6( st atin gth at pr ej u dici al im pacti s r edu ce d b ylim itin gst ate me nt)

.

See id. 14 1 5 u n d e rr u le 4 0 4 (b ) s o lo n ga s it “p o s s e s s e s p r o b a tiv e v a lu e th a t is n o t s u b s ta n tia lly
ou tw eigh ed b y i ts u n d u e p reju d i ce.” Mo rga n , 5 0 5 F .3 d a t 3 3 9 -4 0
. T h e co u r t d id
n otabu se i t s di scr et i on i n f i n di n g t h at t h e t est i m on y’ s probative value w as not
s u b s ta n tia llyo u tw e ig h e d b yits p r eju d ic ia l im p a c t. F i rst, a s ru l e 4 0 4 (b)’ s l a n gu a ge plain l y sta tes, the pr ejud i ce m u st s ubs t antia lly ou tw eigh the p rob a ti ve va l u e; th i s i s a d i ff i cu l t stan d a rd to ov erco m e. N ex t, t h e courtpu ta l i m i t i n g i n st ructi on on the t est i m on y. L i m i t i n g i n st ructi on s,
w her e a p p l i ed co nt em por aneous l y and pr ope r l y, s houl d, ex c epti n t he m os tex t r e m e i ns t anc e s , pr e ve ntt he pr ej udi c e of t e s t i m o ny f

r o m s ubs t ant i al l y o ut w e i ghi n g th e p rob a ti ve va l u e of the statem en t. Fi na l l y, th e of fens es H i nes w as 13 ch a rg ed w i th w ere m ore s eriou s th a n the dr u g a rres ts t h e off i cers testi fi ed ab ou t; t h i s ag ai n li m i t s the prej u di ci alim pa ctof the rul e 404 (b) evi den ce. The c o nf l u- 14
en ce of the se factors , toge th er w i th th e pro b a ti ve va l u e of th e i n ten t a n d i d en ti ty
e v id e n ce , m a n d a te s th a t th is te stim o n yb e a d m itted u n d e r r u le 4 0 4 (b ). AF F I RMED.