H on. W ill ia m C. G ri es bach, D is tr ic t J ud ge f or the Easte rn 1 Dis t ri c tofW i s c ons i n, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1758 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. T ERASE NCE S T EV EN M IT TEN, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 08- CR-40049

—Mi ch ael M . M ihm, Judge
.
A RGUED N OVE MBE R 13, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 20, 2010

Befo re K AN N E an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges , a nd G R I ESBA CH, D istrict Judge. 1 G R I ESBA CH, D i s t rict Judg e . On J uly1, 20 08, pol i ce officers exec uted a s ear ch w ar ra nt o n A partm ent H14 of t he Ma p l e R i d g e a p a r t me n tc o mp l e x i n R o c kI s l a n d, I l l i noi s. The apar tm ent was l eas ed by the g i rl f ri end of2 N o. 09

- 1758 d efend an t Te rasen ce M itten, and w he n the offi cers kn ock ed on the doorand announced thei r pu rpos e f or be i ngthe r e, M i tt ena tt empte d t o b ar r i ca de th e do o r . The o ffi c e r s g a i n e d e n t r y a n d f o u n d a p p r o x i ma t e l y 2 0 g r a ms o fc r ac kc o ca i ne a nd a l o ade d ha ndg un. M i tte n w as charg ed i n a tw o- count ind i ctm ent with posse ssi on o ffi ve gr am s o r m or e o fcr ac k cocaine with i nt en t to di st r ibut e, i n vi o l at i o n o f 21 U. S

. C. § 8 41 ( a) ( 1) a nd 84 1(b )(1) (B ), an d u n law fu l p os se ss ion of a fire ar m in further ance o fa drug tr affi cki ng cr im e, i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 9 24( c) ( 1) ( A )
. A fterunsuccessfull y m ovi ng to supp re ss the e vid ence sei zed fro m the apart m ent, M i tte n enter ed a c ondit i onalgui l ty ple a t o the dr ug char ge, re ser vi ng hi s r i ght t o app ea l the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rder denyi ng hi s m oti on t o supp re ss, and proc eeded to tr i al o n the fi r ea r m c ha r g e. A j ur y f o und hi m g ui l ty, a nd the d ist ric t cour t sente nced hi m to a tot al of fi ftee n yea rs in pri son

— 120 m onths on the d ru g charg e a nd 60 m onths, conse cuti ve, o n the fi re ar m char ge. On app eal, M i tte n c on te n d s t h at (1) th e d ist ric t c ou rt e r r ed in d en yin g h is m o tion to s uppr es s; ( 2) the e vi den ce was i ns uffi ci en t to s uppo r t hi s co nv i ct i o n o n the fi r ea r m s ch ar g e; a nd ( 3) the di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d in i mpo s i nga c o ns e c ut i ve sente nce pursuant to 18 U
. S. C. § 9 24( c) ( 1) ( A )
. W e r ej ect al l thr ee chal l enges and affi rm bo th hi s co nvi cti on and the s entence
.
I. M itt en first cla im s t h at th e d ist ric t c o u r t e rre d in d en yin g h is m ot ion to su p p re ss th e e vid en c e s e ize d inN o. 09

- 1758 3 hi s g i r l f r i en d’ s apa r tment
. I n its de ci si o n de ny i ngthe m o ti o n, th e di st r i ct co ur t ag r ee d wi th M i tt enthat the affid av it su b m itt ed in su p p or t of th e w ar ra n t w as ins u ffici en t to e st ab l i shpr o babl e cause and the r efo r e he l d the w arran t invalid, a hold ing th e govern m en t d oes not h e re con t est. Th e d istri ct cou rt w en t on to con clud e, how ever, that the e vi dence se i zed by pol i c e was adm i ssibl e under the g oo d fa i th exce pti on t o the e x c lu sio naryr ule adopted bythe S upr eme Co urt i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le on , 468 U
. S. 897 ( 1984 )
. M i tte n ar gues that the evi denc e o b tai ned und er the i nval i d warr ant shoul d hav e been ex cl ud ed and tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n c o nc l udi ngtha t th e goo d fa i th exce pti on a pp l i ed und erthe f acts o fthi s ca se. The exclusi onar y r ule i s intended to vi nd i cate r i ghts g ua r an te ed bythe F o ur thAm en dm en t bye xc l udi ng co ns i der ati on at tr i alo fi l l eg al l y o bt aine d e vi den ce . The excl usion ofr el evantand hi ghl y pr obat i ve evi dence, ho w e v e r, i nt erferes w ith th e crim inal j us tice system ’s t r u th -fin d in g fu n c tio n, an d th u s a p p lica tio n of th e ru le can per m i t guil ty defe nd ants to go f re e. S tone v. P ow el l , 428 U
. S. 465, 49 0 ( 1976 )
. I n l i ght o fthe substa nti also ci eta l c os ts of th e ru le, an d rec og n izin g t h at th e p r i m a ry , i f no t so l e, j us ti fi cationf o r the e xc l us i o na r y r ul e i s th e d et er re n c e o f p olic e m isc o n d u c t, th e Su p re m e C ou rth eld i n Le on thatsup press i on ofevi dence is not an appropr i ate re m edy wh en t he o ffi cer s who obt ai ned the e vi dence di d so i n g o o d f ai th r el i an ce upo n a f ac i al l y v al i d war r an t i s s u e d b y a ma g i s t r a t e o r j u d g e . 4 6 8 U
. S

. a t9 2 2 ( “ We concl ud e tha t th e m ar gi nal o r nonexi ste nt be nefi ts prod u c e d b y s u p p re ss in g e vid en c e o b ta in ed in o b j ec tiv ely re aso nabl e r el i ance o n a s ubsequentl y inv alidated s ear ch4 N o. 09

- 1758

w arran t can not j us tify the sub stan tial costs of exc lusion.”). It is th at ex c ep tio n th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d ap p lica b le here

. I t co ncl ud ed that eve n t h ou gh the w ar ra nt was i nval i d, the o ffi cer s a cted i n go od f ai th r el i ance upon i ts val i dity. This Court re vi ew s th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s ul ti m ate l ega l conc lu si on that the o ffi cerr eas onabl y r el i ed upon a warr ant l ate r f ound to b e in va l i d und erthe deno vo st an d ar d of re vie w . U nite d State s v. Koerth , 31 2 F
. 3d 862, 865 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. I n deci ding w h et h eran o ffi cerwas acting i n go od f ai th , the f act that the o ffi cerso ught t o obt ai n a warr ant i s pri m a f aci e e vi dence t h at he was ac tin g in goo d fa ith

. U nite d State s v. B el l , 58 5 F
. 3d 1045 , 10 52 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( ci tingLe on , 468 U
. S. at 9 21 n
. 21). T h e p r e s u mpt i o n o fg o o d fa i thth a tth e r e b y a r i s e s , h o wev er, c anb e r eb ut te d i fthe de f en dan t sh o ws tha t “( 1) the j udg e i ss ui ngthe war r an t ab an do ne d hi s det ac he d a nd neutra l r ol e; ( 2) the offi cerwas dis honesto r re ckl ess i n prepar i ng the affi davi t; o r ( 3) the w ar ra nt was so l acking i n p ro babl e ca use that the o ffi cer ’ s be l i efi n i ts exi ste nce was enti re l y unre aso nabl e. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. G arci a , 528 F.3d 481 , 487 (7th C ir. 2008). M i tte n do es n ot ar gue that the i ssui ng j ud ge ab an d on e d h i s d et ac h ed an d n eu tr al ro le a n d m er ely rubbe r- sta m ped the warra nt; nordoes h e argue that Offi ce r Eddi e Conne l l y, the o ffice r who o bt aine d the war r an t, was r ec k l es s o r di sh o ne sti n pr epa r i ngthe supp or ti ng affidavi t. I nstea d, he ar gues that Offi cer Connell y’ s a ffi davi t was so cle ar l y d efi ci ent that no o ffi cer coul d rea sonab l y r el y up on i t a s a uthor i zati on t o sea rchN o. 09

- 1758 5

The sam e af fi davi twas us ed t o o bt ai n a s ea rc h war ra ntf or 2 M it ten’ s m other’ s house at733 13th Str eetin the City ofM oli ne. T he issuan ce of tha t w arr an t is no t at issue in th is ap p eal. A partm ent H14. M i tte n con tend s that the affi davi t was 2 ess enti al l y “ bar e bo nes” and res ted upon concl us or y, uncorr obo ra ted , and sta l e a ccounts ofcr i m i nal act i vi ty f ro m two co nfi denti ali nfo rm ants w hose r el i abi l i ty w as neveres tabl i shed. “Bar e bo nes” affi davi ts such as Offi cerConnel l y’ s, M i tte n ar gues, “s houl d n ot be pr o te ct ed bythe g o o d f ai the xc eption.” Br i efo fDe f en dant-Ap pel l ant a t 2 7. T h o u gh n o ta mo d e l o fc l a r i t y o r d r a ft s ma n s h i p , we do not accept M i tte n’s char acte ri zati on o fOffi cer C on n elly ’s s ix

- a n d -a-h alf-p ag e a ffid av it a s “ b ar e b on es .” N ori s i t ba sed so l el y upon st al e a ccounts f ro m confi denti ali nfo rm ants l acking al l i nd i ci a o fr el i abi l i ty. O ff ice r C on n elly ’s re c ita tio n of th e fa c ts su p p or tin g h is appli cati on f ora sea rch w ar ra nt f orthe apart m ent o f M i tte n’s gi rl f ri end begi ns with atr affi c st op on N o ve m ber 19 , 2 00 7, mor e th ans ev enmonths b efo r e th e sea rch. M i tte n and Rober t J
. W hi te w er e a rr est ed after sm al l am ounts ofm ar ij uana, pow der c oca i ne and fi ve in d ivid u ally w ra p p ed cr ac k c oc ain e ro c ks w e r e f ou n d in a ca r th ey w er e dri vi ng. The carwas own ed by a l oca l a u t o d e a l e r, a n d Mi t t e n h a d p l ac ed $ 1 , 0 0 0 c a s h d o wn on the c arso m eti m e e ar l i er . M i tte n to ok re sponsibi l i ty f o r the dr ug s an d was su bsequent l y pl ac ed o n pr o ba ti o n. A t that tim e, M itte n cl ai m ed that both he a nd W hi te l i ved w i th M i tte n’s m othe r i n M ol i ne, I l l i noi s.6 N o. 09

- 1758 The affi davi t next re cite s that Offi cerConnel l y was tol d by a co nfi denti also urce ( CS- 1) , wh o adm i tte d that h e h ad be en d ea lin g c ra c k c o c a in e fo r ap p ro x im at ely th r ee months , tha t he pur ch as es all of hi s cr ac kc o ca i ne f r o m the s am e dr ugde al era t Apar tmentH14 o fthe M apl e Ri dge apartm ent c om ple x. CS- 1 t ol d Offi cer C onn ell y tha t the d r u g de aler drove a tan Bu ick Park Aven ue , wh ich m atc he d the de sc r i pti o n o fo ne o fthe v e hi c l e s Mi t t e n ha d b e e n s e e n dr i v i ngb y s ur v e i l l ance offic er s . W h en sh ow n a p ict u re of M itt en , C S-1 p os itiv ely i denti fi ed hi m as th e p er son f ro m wh om he ha d been buy i ngc r a c ka tthe Map l e R i dg e a pa r t men t
. Offi cer Conne l ly n ote d tha t Kry st alPh i l l i ps was l i st ed as the re ntero fA partm ent H 14 , and the uti l i ti es f orthat add re ss w er e bi l l ed to hernam e. A se co nd c o nfi den ti als o ur ce ( CS-2), w ho a dm i tt ed he had been deal i ng nar c oti cs foro verte n yea rs , to l d pol i ce that i n M ay 2008 he purchas ed a di str ibuti on a m ount o f cr ac kc o ca i ne i n a n a par tmentl o ca ted i n the H bui l di ng ofthe M apl e Ri dge apar tm ent com ple x w here a bl ack f em al e know n as K rysta l l i ves. CS- 2, wh om Offi cer Connell y s tat ed had provi ded tr uthfuland acc urat e in for m at ion th at led to a t le as t o n e a d d itio n al a rre st in th e pas t, a l so s ta te d th at W hi te was pr es en t dur i ngthe tr an sa ct i o n. Offi cerConnel l y’ s affi davi t g oes o n to r eco unt that M i tte n and W hi te w er e a gai n sto pp ed by pol i ce o n M ay 29, 200 8, wh i l e dri vi ng a tan 1 994 Bu i ck ParkA venue, w hi ch M i tte n cl ai m ed to ow n . W hi te w as ar re ste d on an o ut st an di ng war r a n t f o r Ag g r a v a t e d F l e e i n g a ndN o. 09

- 1758 7 El udi ng, a nd i n a s ea r cho fthe ve hi cl e i nc i den t to the arrest, po l i ce f o und a s m al la m o unto fc an nabi s an d $13, 235 i n U .S. c u rrency, m osto fwh i ch w as f ound un der th e f r o ntpa ss en g ers ea t, b ut$2, 31 5 o fwhi chwas f o und i n M i tte n’s poss ess i on. Pol i ce found tw enty to thi rty m i ni “z i p-l oc” bag gi es on W h i te. M i tte n cl ai m ed he was on his way t o Chi ca g o , b utwas he ade d t o war d the M apl e Ri dge apar tm ents because h e in tended to sto p and say goo dbye t o hi s g i rl f ri end K ry sta l Phi l l i p s fi rs t. M itt en ac kn ow led ge d t h at th e s m all a m ou n t o f ca n n ab is w as hi s a nd subse quentl y a dm i tte d that he sol d cannabi s. M i tte n and W hi te cl ai m ed that the m i ni “z i p-l oc” bag gi es f ound on W hi te w er e f orthe sal e o fni ckelb ag s, or no n- f el o ny a m o unt s, o fc an nabi s. W i th res pec t to the l ar ge am ount o fm oneyf oun d u n d erthe passenge r sea t, M i tte n stated thatW hi te pla ced i t there wh en he got i n the vehi cl e, but M i tte n ap p arentl y deni ed any further knowle dge ab out w here th e m oneycam e fro m bec ause i t w a s “ n on e o f h is b u sin es s.” W h ite w as ap p ar en tly una war e o fthe t o ta l a m o unto fmone y found i n the vehi cl e, and stated he r ecei ved $4, 000 f ro m hi s f ather and $4, 500 f ro m hi s m othe r to b u y a car. W hen pol i ce l ate r te lep h oned them , however, bo th o fW hi te’ s par ents denie d they had gi ven hi m such a n am ount o fm on ey. Offi cerConnel l y a l so note d i n hi s a ffi davi t that b ase d o n his ow n e xpe r i en ce a s a dr ugi nv es ti g at o r, min i “zi p-l oc” bag gi es such as those f ound in W hi te’ s pos ses si on a re c onsis tent w i th the sa l e o fcr ack coca i ne o r hero i n, notcannabi s. T he affidav it desc r ib e s a search of a trash bag left ou tsid e of M itten’ s m oth er’s hou se in M oli ne , w he re8 N o. 09

- 1758 M i tte n cl ai m ed he and W hite live d, on J une 3, 20 08. Po l i c e f o un d a l e t t e r a ddr e s s e d t o M i t t e n f r o m hi s a uto in su ra n c e c ar r i er an d a sin gle j oin t c on ta in in g c an n ab is amongthe i te m s o ft r as h. Fi nal l y, Offi cerConnel l y r eco unted pol i ce s u rv eil l ance r ep orts ofM i tt eno n the e ve ni ngo fJ une 1 2, 2 00 8, a s he w as dr i v i nga wh i t e 1 9 9 9 Bu i c kP a r kAv e nu e r e g i s t e r ed to K ry sta l Phi l l i ps w ith W hi te as a pass enger . Pol i ce follo w ed M itt en as h e d ro ve in a n d a r o u n d M olin e in the a re a o fhi s m othe r’ s ho use a nd then i n the vi ci ni ty of the M apl e Ri dge apar tm ents i n Rock I slan d

. The r outes ta k enb y M i tt ena nd the numbe r a nd na tu r e o fs to ps he m ad e alo ng the way l ed the offi cer s t o concl ud e M i tte n w as d oi ng co unters urve i l l ance t o avo i d bei ng dete cted by pol i ce. A l though the affi davi t r eci tes addit i onalf ac ts , they add l i ttl e i fany w ei ght t o the pr obab l e c au se deter m i natio n . From w h at w e h av e re c ou n te d , ho w ev er , i t s h ou ld be c l e a r th a tth e wa r r a n twa s n o t“ b a r e b o n e s . ” As th e d istri ct j ud ge not ed , i t clearly estab li sh ed a p a t t ern ofdrug- re l ate d acti vi ty i nvol vin g M i tte n. I n f act, Offi cer Co nn e l l y ’ s a ffi da v i tc o nt a i ns e v i de nc e tha tMi t t e n a dm i tt e d a s mu c h d u r i n gth e Ma y 2 9 t r a ffi c s t o p , c l a i m i ng he s o l d s m al l a m o unt s o fmar ij ua na . Ofc o ur se , the o th ere vi den ce de sc r ibe d i n the a ffi dav i t su ppo r ts the i n fer ence that M i tte n and W hi te w er e s el l i ng m or e than sm al l am ounts ofm ar ij u an a. The m i ni “z i p-l oc” bag gi es foun d on W hi t e d uring the M ay 29 traffi c stop w ere c o n s i s t e n t wi th c r a c k o r h e r o i n s a l e s , n o t ma r ij u an a, a nd the a m ount o fm oney f ound in thei r posse ssi on s ugges tedN o. 09

- 1758 9

The d is tr ic t j ud ge also o b se rved that“w hen peop le are 3 c ar ry i ng a ro und m ul t i pl e i ndi vi dual l y wra pped r oc ks of cr a ck , th ey ’re n o rm a lly for sa le .” m or e than occ asi onalsales. Consi dered to gether w i th th e fac t th at at th e N ov em b er 19 , 20 07 st op , s o m e s ix m o nths e ar l ier, fi ve i ndi vi dual l y wra pped cr ac kc o ca i ne ro cks w er e f ound on M i tte n’s per son and the s tat em ents ofthe confi denti also urces , the tot al i ty ofevi dence r ecounted st ro ngl y s ugges ts that they w er e cr ack deal er s. 3 T he district cou rt also not e d , how ever, that th ere w ere probl em s with the affi davi t. There w as no i nd i cati on that CS- 1 had pre vio usl y pr ovi ded r el i abl e info rm ati on t o pol i c e , a nd the a ffi da v i twa s s i l e nta s t o wh e n CS

- 1 ma de hi s cr ack pu rchas es f ro m M i tte n at the M apl e Ri dge apart m ent. A l though CS- 2 i s s ai d t o h ave provi ded tr uthfuland accur ate i nfo rm ati on i n the past that l ed to one add i ti onalar re st, th e affi davi t doe s no t desc ribe the nature ofth e info rm ati on that was pro vi ded , o r say ho w l o nga g o i t was pr o vi ded. CS

- 2 di d s ta te that th e tr ansa c ti on a t the M apl e Ri dge co m ple x occur re d du ri ng the m onth o fM ay 20 08 , b ut does notgi ve a spe ci fi c d a t e . C S

- 2 a l s o f a i l e d t o s p e c i fy th e a p a r t me nt num ber w here the tr ansact i on occur red , i n st ead des cr ibi ng i t as a n a par tmenti n the H bui l di ngo fthe M apl e Ridge com ple x w here a w om an nam ed K ry sta l l i ved. I n the vi ew o fthe dist ri ct c ourt, t h is i nfo rm ati on w as i nsuffi ci ent t o est abl i sh a connect i on be tw een evi dence ofcr i m i nal drug deal i ng byM i tte n and W hi te, on the o ne ha n d , and A partm ent H14 ofthe M apl e Ri dge10 N o. 09

- 1758

com ple x on the o ther

. The di str i ct c ourtfu rther concl ud ed, however, thatthe affi davi t was notso l acking tha t Offi cerConnel l y’ s be l i efthati t e stabl i shed probabl e ca use was enti re l y unre aso nabl e. W e agr ee w i th the dist ri ct cour t that M i tte n f ai l ed to re but the pre sum pti on that Office r Connell y r el i ed on th e war r an t i n g o o d f ai th

. The de fi ci en ci es no te d i n the affi dav i t ar e no t so e g r eg i o us a s to r en derhi s be l i efi n the w ar ra nt’ s v al i dity unre aso nabl e. M i tten ar gues that Connell y’ s a ffi davi t r eci tes o nl y tw o i nstance s in w hi ch drug deal i ng i s a l l ege d to have ta ke n p l ace at Phil l i ps’ apart m ent, and that both ar e ba sed upon i nfo rm ati on provi ded by tw o separ ate co nfi denti ali nfo rm ants “w hose concl usor y a ccounts ofcr im in al a cti vi ty at the pr em i ses ar e whol l y uncor ro bor ate d, and whose r el i abi l i ty, ve ra ci ty and basi s f orkno w l edge a re unestabl i shed. ” Bri efo f Defe nd ant- A pp el l ant at 24. Bu t thi s i s not tr ue. A lth ough onl y tw o confi denti al i nfo rm ants provi de d i nfo rm ati on ab o utdrugdea l i ngta k i ngpl ac e a t Phi l l i ps’ a par tment, the inform ation w as abou t m ore tha n t w o oc cu rrenc es. C S-1 st at ed th athe made allo fhi s cr ac kpur ch as es o ve r the th r ee - m o nth pe r i o d he was d ea l i ngc r ac ka t Apar tment H 14 atth e M ap le R id ge A p ar tm en ts . H e p os itiv ely id en tifi ed M i tt ena s hi s so ur ce fr o m a phot o g r aph, a nd d escribed the kind of car he ha d seen M itten driving. C S-2 l i kewis e stat ed he had purchase d a di str ibuti on quanti ty o fc r a c kf r o m a n a p a r t me n ti n B u i l d i n gH s o me t i me du ri ng the m onth o fM ay 2008
. The addit i onalf acts that a wom anna m ed Kry st alwas the ren tero fthe a par tment an d that W hite w as p resen t d uring the tran sact ion are suffi ci ent t o gi ve ri se to a r eas onabl e infe re nce that thi s t ra nsacti on a l so too k pl ace i n A partm ent H14.N o. 09

- 1758 11 I t i s tr ue tha t th e affi dav i t l ac k s an y i nform at i o n abo ut C S-1’s hi st o r y o fpr o vi di ngt r uthfuli nf o r m at i o n, a nd the o ne i ns ta nc e ci te d i n regard to CS

- 2 i s va g ue . I n a ppl y i ng f orse ar ch w ar ra nts, however, p ol i ce a re notl i m i ted to re l yi ng o nl y o n i nfo rm ants w i th pro ven t ra ck re cord s of pr o vi di ngt r uthfu l i nf o r m at i o n. Pa stpe r f o r m an ce i s o ne w ay of establi s h in g the vera city or r eli abili ty of an i nform ant, but i t i s no t the o nl y way. The r el iab ility o r v e r a c i t y o f a n i nfo r man t i n a pa r t i c ul a r c a s e c a n al so be shown by co rr obo rati on o fthe i nfo rm ati on he provi des th ro u gh in d ep en d en t p olic e in ve st iga tio n . Illin o is v. G a tes , 46 2 U .S. 21 3, 24 1 (1 98 3). In d ee d , G a tes hel d that ev en i nfo rm ati on from a singl e a nonym ous info rm ant ca n be c or ro b or at ed to th e d eg re e n ee d ed to es ta b lish p ro b ab le cau se for th e issuan ce o f a s e a rch w arran t. H ere, th ere w as not one i nfo rm ant who c laim ed to have purchase d dr ug s o uto fM i tt en ’ s g i r l f r i en d’ s apa r tment, b ut two , a nd nei therwas anonym ous; pol i ce knew th ei r i denti ti es. Each i nfo rm ant’ s stat em ent that he pu rchas ed cr ack at th e apa r tmentg en er al l y c o r r o bo r at ed th e o th er ’ s, a nd b ot h in t u rn w er e c or ro b or at e d , at le as t in p ar t a n d in ge n er al, by th e a d d itio n al in for m at ion ind ep en d en tly o bt aine d b y po l i ce tha t i ndi ca te d tha t M i tt ena nd W hi te w er e invol ved on an o ngoingbas i s with di st r ibuting d r ug s, a nd tha t M i tt enha d a c l o se r el at i o nsh ip w ith P h illip s. See U nited S t a tes v. Wiley, 47 5 F
. 3d 908, 91 6-17 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ho l di ngtha t no twi th st an di ng abse nce o fst at em ent a tte sti ng to cr edibi l i ty ofi nfo rm ant, g en er alc o r r o bo r at i o n b y o th eri nf o r m at i o n, i nc l udi ng i n f o r ma t i o n fr o m s e p a r a t e i n f o r ma n t, wa s s u ffi c i en t to estab li sh prob able cau se.)
.12 N o. 09

- 1758 I t i s a l so note w or thy that the st ate m ent o fea ch i nfo rm ant a pp ear s t o have been contr ar y t o hi s p en al i nter est s, atl eas t o n the surf ace. In eff ect, ea ch adm i tte d th at h e w as n otsim p ly a cr ac k u se r , b u t a cr ac k d ea ler , a ser i ous c ri m e under both sta te and f edera l l aw . S tat em ents ag ains t pe na l i nt er es t ha ve a l so b ee n v i ewe d a s ca r r y i ng som e ind i ci a o fr el i abi l i ty: A d m iss ion s o f cr im e, like ad m iss ion s a ga i n s t p ro p rie ta ry int er es ts , ca rry th eir ow n ind icia of cr ed ibility -su fficie n t a t l e as t t o s u p p or t a find in g of p ro b ab le cause to sea rch. That the i nfo rm ant m ay b e pai d or prom i sed a ‘ bre ak’ does not el i m i nate the r esi du al ri sk and opprobr i um o fhavi ng adm itt ed cr i m i nal conduct. Concededlyadm i ssi on s ofcr i m e do not al w ays l en d cr edibi l i ty to conte m pora neous orl ate r acc us ations of anoth er. Bu t here th e inform an t’s admi ss i o n that o ve r a l o ngpe r i o d a nd c ur r en tl y he had b een buyi ng i l l i ci t l i quor on cer tain pre m i ses , i tse l fand w i thout m or e, i m p licat ed that proper ty an d fur ni sh ed pr o babl e ca us e to s ea r ch

. U nite d State s v. Harris , 40 3 U.S . 573, 58 3- 84 ( 1971 )
. To b e sure , i t i s probabl e that both infor m ants i n thi s ca se provi ded thei r i nfo rm ati on a ftertheyhad bee n ar re ste d f orse l l i ng cr ack and w er e m oti vate d by a desi re to l ess en the conse quences they w oul d l i kel y suff erfor their o wn cr i m es . Tha t i s al m o sta l way s th e ca se i n dr ug i nv e s t i g a t i o ns , b uti tdo e s n o tma k e the i nfo r m ati on th ey p ro vid e in h er en tly u n re liab le. See U nite d S t at e s v. O l s on , 40 8 F
. 3d 36 6, 37 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “A m oti ve to curr y f avo r, however, d oe s not necess ar i l y r ender anN o. 09

- 1758 13 i nfo rm ant unr e l i a b l e . I nd e e d, e v e n i nfo rm ants ‘attem p t [i ng ] to strike a bargain w ith th e po li ce [hav e] a str ong i ncenti ve to provi de accura te and speci fi c i nfo rm ati on r atherthan f al se i nfo rm at ion about [ a defendant’s ] i l l ega l act i vi ty. ’ ”) ( quoti ng Koerth , 31 2 F
. 3d at 87 0)
. The sought

- afterr ew ar d fr om l aw enf or cem ent in such cas es i s gener al l y c onti ngent upon the i nfo rm ati on pro vi ded b y s u c h an info rm an t b ein g a c c u ra te an d u se fu l. Fi nal l y, the f act that each i nfo rm ant cl ai m ed to have p u rc h as ed th e c ra c k h im se lf d es c r i b es th e b as is for h is knowle dge, i
. e. , p er sonal o bser vati on. Though l i ght o n detai l s, nei therso urce’ s a ccount can be acc urat el y c hara cterized as w h o lly c onc lusory, that is, cons isti ng of a bare c on c lu sio n w ith n o fa c tu al b as is. See G a tes , 462 U
. S. at 239. I m p licit, atl eas t infe re nti al l y, i n Offi cer Connell y’s a ffi davi t i s the as ser ti on that e ach o fthes e experi enced cr ack deal er s r epor ted to a p ol i ce o ffi cer th athe pe r so na l l y wentt o A par tmentH14 wher e he pu rchas ed a s i gni fi cant qu an tity o fa substa nce he re cog ni zed as cr ack coca i ne. M i tte n’s state m ent t o pol i ce du ri ng the M ay 29 tr affi c st op thath e w as on hi s way to h is gir lfrien d P h illip s’ a p ar tm en t, an d th e p olic e s u rv eill ance r epor ts sta ti ng tha t he w as see n dri vi ng Phi l l i ps’ carsho w the cl ose co nnecti on be tw een th e tw o that, to ge th er w ith th e in for m an ts ’ ac c ou n ts , m ak es p ro b ab le th e no ti o n tha t M i tt ena nd W hi te ha d s o ld cr ac ko ut ofPhi l l i ps’ apart m ent. P er h ap s t h e m os t s er io u s d efic ien c y in th e a ffid av it su bm itted by O fficer Con ne lly i s the age of th e inform at i o n, e spe ci al ly th e i nf o r m at i o n r el at i ngt o Apar tment14 N o. 09

- 1758 H 14. I t i s no t e nough to e st ab l i sh pro babl e ca use that th e ap ar tm en t at on e tim e con ta in ed c on tr ab an d o r ev iden ce o fa c r i m e. Prob abl e ca us e to s ea r ch, e xc epti n the c as e o f an tic ip at or y s ea rc h w a r r a n t s, ex ist s “ on ly if it is establi sh ed that c e r tain iden tifiable obj ects are p rob ably con ne cted w ith certain crim inal activity an d are p r o b a b ly to be fou n d atth e p re se n t t im e in a c er ta in id en tifia b le p lac e.” 2 W ay n e R . L a F av e, Se ar ch an d S e iz u r e : A Tre a t i s eo n t h eF o u r t h A me n dm e nt§ 3. 7( a) at37 1 ( 4th e d. 2004 )
. Offi cerC onnel l y obtained the warr ant o n Jun e 27, 2008
. Yet, there w a s n o da te given for w he n C S-1 p urc ha sed crack o ut of th e ap artm en t, an d CS-2 re p or te d on ly on e p u rc h as e o n an u n sp ec ified d at e in M ay . The mos t r ec en t i nf o r m at i o n s etf o r thi n the affi d avit con sisted of th e Ju n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , report th atM i tt ena nd W hi te s ee m ed to b e co nd ucti ng co unt er su r ve i l l an ce a s th eydr o ve i n the a r ea o fthe M apl e Ri dge a par tmentc o m pl ex i n Ro ckI sl an d a nd M i tt en ’ s m o th er ’ s ho us e i n Mol i ne . M i tt ena r g ue s th atthe i nfo rm ati on co ntai ned i n Offi cerConnel l y’ s a ffi davi t, ev en i fsuffi ci ent t o est abl i sh pro babl e ca use that c ra ck w as p re vio u sly so ld ou t o f P h illip s’ a p ar tm en t, w as to o s ta le to s uppo r t a fi ndi ngo fpr o bab le ca us e th atthe evi dence so ught would l i kel y be f ound there o n J une 27, 2008 , w he n the wa r r a ntwa s i s s ue d, o r J ul y 1 , 2 0 0 8 , wh en i twa s fi na l l y e xe c ut e d. Eve n thi s defi ci en cy, ho wev er, do es no t co nv i nc e us that Offi cerConnel l y’ s r el i ance on the warra nt was unrea
so nabl e. As n o te d abo ve , the e vi den ce r ec o unt ed i n the affi davi t ind i cate s an ongo i ng patt er n ofdrug deal i ng by M i tte n and W hi te. I t i s w el l establ i shed that the “ [ p]as sag e of ti m e i s l ess cri ti cal w hen the affi davi t re f er s to f acts thatN o. 09

- 1758 15 i nd i cate o ngoi ng co nti nuous cr i m i nal act i vi ty. ” U nited Sta tes v. P less , 982 F.2d 11 18 , 112 5-2 6 (7 th C ir. 19 92 ); see al s o Unit e d S t at e s v. La m on , 9 3 0 F.2d 1183, 1188 (7th C ir. 1991 ) ( “I nd eed, atl eas t o ne ci rcui t h as r eco gni zed that p robabl e ca use m ay be found ‘s eve ra l weeks, i fnot m onths, ’ after‘ the l astr epor ted i nstance ofsuspect [ dr ug - tr affi ck i ng ] a ct ivi ty
. ’ ”) ( quo tingU ni t e d S t at e s v. A ng ulo -Lo pez , 791 F.2d 139 4, 1399 ( 9th Cir. 1986)). I ti s i n th i s r e s p e c tth a tth i s c a s e d i ff e r s fr o m U nited St at e s v. O wen s , 38 7 F
. 3d 607 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) , a case M i tt en c i te s i n s uppo r t o fhi s ar g um en t th atthe ev id en c e w as to o s ta le t o s u p p o r t a fin d in g of p ro b ab le ca us e. I n O wen s the Court hel d that a n affi davit that m er el y s ta te d tha t th r ee months e ar l i era n i nf o r m ant ha d pur ch as ed anuns peci fi ed a m o unto fc r ac kc o ca i ne fro m th e d efe n d an t a t a h ou s e b elie ve d to be h is r e s i de nc e wa s i ns uffi c i e nt t o s up po r t the wa r r a ntthat w as i ssued. The Courtf ound the affid avitso i nadequ ate th a tthe g o o d f a i th e xc e pt i o n c o ul d n o te v e n b e a pp l i ed to save the sea rch because the offi cer s who condu c ted the s ear ch co uld n ot have re aso nabl y b el i eve d i t was va lid

. Id. at60 8. U nl i ke thi s ca se, however, ther e was no e vi den ce i n O w e ns thatthe sal e was anythi ng o ther than an i sol ate d occurr ence; ther e was no evi dence of ongo i ng cr i m i nal act i vi ty. I n stead, thi s ca se i s m or e l i ke U nited Sta tes v. Sp ry, 190 F.3d 829 ( 7th Cir . 1 9 9 9 ), w he re the C ou rtupheld a w ar ra nt i ssued i n Feb ruar y 1 998 base d on an a ffi davi t r eco unti ng ev i dence se i zed fro m the defendant’s hom e un d er a M ay 1997warra nt, to g ethe r wi thr epo r ts fr o m mul ti pl e i nf o r m an ts tha t th e defe nd ant co nti nued to tr affi c i n drugs f ollow i ng her 1997arrest
. “[ N ] ei therthe uncert ai nty o fthe re l i abi l i ty16 N o. 09

- 1758

I ti s al s o n ot ewor thy thatOf fi c er Co nne l l y s oughtan d 4 obt ai ne d the appr oval of the Rock I s l and County A ssist ant St at e’ s At t or ne y be f or e pre s en t i ng h i s warra nt re que s tt o the sta te ju d g e w h o issu ed it. S ee U n ited S tates v . M erritt, 361 F. 3d 10 05 , 10 12 ( 7th C ir. 20 04 ) (“A g en t V e r g on ’ s con sulta tion w ith the A U SA parti cular ly s up ports the finding thathis rel iance u p o n th e w a rr a n t w a s o b jec tiv el y re a so n a b le .”), vaca t ed on ot hergr ounds , 54 3 U .S. 1 0 9 9 (20 0 5 ). o fthe i nf o r m an ts , no r the a g e o fthe i nf o r m at i o n i n the w ar ra nt affi davi t, ” the Courtco ncl ud ed, “s hou ld gi ve thi s Courtca u se t o over rul e a nd hol d that the di str i ct cour t co m m i tte d err ori n fi nd i ng tha t pr obab l e ca use exi ste d to supp or t the 19 98 sea rch w ar ra nt. ” Id. at83 6. I n thi s case, of cour se, the i ssue ofthe w ar ra nt’ s v al i dity i s no t be f o r e us . The g o ve r nm en t ha s no t ch al l en g ed th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s det er m i na ti o n tha t th e st at e j ud g e who i ss ue d the warrant l ac k ed “a s ubs ta nt i alb as i s f o r c o ncl ud i ng tha t pr obab l e ca use e xi ste d,” G a tes , 46 2 U.S

. at 2 3 8

- 3 9 ( i n t e r n a l quo te s a n d b r a c k e t s e x c l u d e d ) , a n d we se e no r ea so n t o di sturb th atr ul i ng . The i ss ue b efo r e us is w h et h er th e a ffid av it w as so lac kin g in p ro b ab le cau se th atOffi ce r Co nne l l y c o ul d no t ha ve b el i ev ed th e wa r r a n tv a l i d

. F o r th e r e a s o n s e x p l a i n ed ab o v e , we hol d that i t was not
. W e there f or e a ffirm t he di str i ct 4 cour t’ s o rderdenyi ng M i tte n’s m oti on t o supp re ss.

II. A s note d above , f ol l owing the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f hi s m oti on t o su pp re ss, M i tte n ente re d a gui l ty ple a t o th e cr ac kc o ca i ne c ha rge and pr o ce ede d t o t r i alo n theN o. 09

- 1758 17 charg e that he had posses sed a fi rear m i n further ance o f a d rug traffi cking offense in violati on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 924(c). T h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c to fg u i l t y, a n d Mi t t e n c l a i ms th e e v i d e n c e wa s i n s u ffi c i e n tto s u p p o r tth e v e r d i c t
. He contend s that the ev i dence addu ced at tr i alwas i nsuffi c ien t to est abl i sh be yond a re aso nabl e doubt that he pos sesse d a firea r m “ in furt he ran ce” of his dru g traffi cki ng. The m er e f act that a gun w as f ound in the a partm en t, he a r g ue s, i s i ns uffi ci en t to prove tha t he po s s e s s e d a fi r e a r m i n fu r th e r a n c e o fh i s d r u gt r a ffi ck i ng cri m e. M i tt en h a s a h e a v y b u r d e n i n s e e k i n g t o o v e r t u r n a j ury’ s v er dict

. “A d efendant att acking the suffici ency of th e evide nc e use d to con v ic t h im f aces a nearly i ns urm ountabl e hurdl e. ” U n it ed States v. M orris , 57 6 F
. 3d 661, 665- 66 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( i nter nal quote s a nd ci tat i ons om i tted)

. W e v i ew the f acts i n the l i gh t m ostf avo rabl e t o th e v er d ict, U nited Sta tes v. C a la brese, 57 2 F
. 3d 362, 36 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , and w il l r eve rs e o nl y i fno ra ti onalj uror coul d hav e f ound guil t beyo nd a re aso nable d ou bt. M orris , 57 6 F
. 3d at 666 (c ita ti ons om i tte d). M i tte n has not m et hi s bur den here

. A t the outs et, w e agree w ith M itten th a t t h e m ere prese nce o fa fi re ar m i n a d w ellin g where drugs hav e been sol d i s i nsuffi ci ent to prove the “in furthera nce” ele m en t o f Sec tio n 92 4(c ). T h is C ou rth as rep ea te d ly he l d t h a t“ th e r e mu s tb e a s h o wi n go fs o me n e x us b et w ee n th e fire ar m an d t h e d ru g s ellin g op er at ion .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. D uran , 407 F .3d 8 28 , 8 40 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); see al s o U ni t e d St at e s v. V a ug hn , 585 F.3d 102 4, 1029 ( 7th Cir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. Fo use, 578 F. 3d 643, 650-51 (7 t h C ir.18 N o. 09

- 1758 2009 ). W e recogn ize tha t “ a pos sesse d gun can f orw ard a d ru g-t ra ffick in g off en se by p ro vid in g t h e d ea l e r , his sta sh o r hi s t er ri tor y with pro te c tio n. ” D uran , 40 7 F
. 3d at 480 ( ci ti ng U nite d State s v. C asti ll o , 406 F. 3d 806, 814- 18 ( 7th Cir

. 200 5); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lu ci ano , 329 F.3d 1, 6 (1st C ir. 2003 ) )
. On t h e ot her hand , i t i s i m port ant t o dist i ngui sh between the type ofposs ess i on t ar get ed by the s tatute an d th e “ ‘ i nno ce nt po ss es si o n o f a wal l

- m o unt ed an tiqu e or an u n loa d ed h u n tin g rifle loc ke d in a cu p b oa rd .’ ” D uran , 4 07F
. 3d at8 40 ( quo tingU nited S ta tes v. M a ck ey, 26 5 F
. 3d 45 7, 4 61 ( 6th Ci r . 2 00 1) )
. To a i d i n di stingui sh i ng between the cri m i nal “posse ssi on- i n-further ance” cove re d by Se cti on 9 24( c) and the i nnocent p oss ess i on that f al l s o utsi de i ts sco pe, the D uran Co ur t su g g es te d c o nsi derat i on o fa ser i es off acto rs se t o ut by the Fi fth Ci r cui t i n U nited Sta tes v. C e b a llo s-To rres , 21 8 F
. 3d 409, 4 1 4 -15 (5t h C ir.), m odi f i e d on de ni al of

re he ar i ng, 2 2 6 F. 3d 65 1 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 0)
. The y i nc l ude “ th e ty pe o fdr ug ac ti vi tytha t i s be i ngc o nduc te d, a cc ess ibi l i tyo fthe fire ar m , th e t yp e o f th e w ea p on , w h et h er th e w ea p on is stole n, the sta tu s of th e po ssess ion (l egitim ate or i ll egal), whethe r the g un i s l o ade d, pr o xi m i tyt o dr ug s o r dr ug pr o fi ts , a nd the t i m e a nd c i r cumst an ce s unde r whi chthe g uni s f o un d.” D uran , 4 07F
. 3d at4 80 ( quo ting Ceb al l os - Torres , 21 8 F
. 3d at 414- 15)
. U l ti m ate l y, co m m on se n se m u st be th e g u id e. D uran , 40 7 F
. 3d at 480. Ba s e d o n o urc o ns i de r a t i o n o fthe C eba llo s-To rres factors he re, w e con clud e tha t the eviden c e w as su ffi ci ent t o supp or t the v er d ict. The ev i dence es tabl i shed that M i tte n had been d ea ling c ra ck coca i ne, wh i ch has l ong been re cogni zed as a dangero us pursui t oft en r equi r i ngfi r earm s pr o te ct i o n. The fi r ea r m f o und in theN o. 09

- 1758 19 ap ar tm en t w as a 9m m h an d gu n w h ich is ea sily co nc ea l ed an d t r an spo r te d. The g un wa s l o ca te d o n the top s hel fo fa cl ose t about fi ve f eetdow n a hal l w ay f r o m mor e th an$ 6, 00 0 wor tho fdr ug s, addi ti o na l c as h, a n d s cales. I t w as load ed w ith a roun d i n th e ch am ber. P o l i c e f o un d a p l a s t i c P e p s i b o t t l e w i th a c o n c e a l e d c o mpa rt m en t on the sam e s hel fas the gun and a ci garbo x conta i ni ng $1 76 on the se cond shel f

. Finally, M i tte n po ss es se d the wea po n i l l eg al l y . The f act th atthe fi re ar m was not sto l en i s the o nl y D uran fac tor that favors M itte n . Th e absen ce of this si ng le f acto r, how ever, i s har dlya basi s f oro ver turni ng the j ury’ s v er dict

. M itt en arg u e s t h at th e e vid en c e is n ev er th ele ss ins u ffici ent b ecause “no te sti m ony w as prese nted that[ he] ev er so l d dr ug s f r o m th e apa r tment, o r th at th e ha ndg un w as read i l y a cces sibl e t o hi m , o r that he ev erposs ess ed the handgun duri ng anydrug tr ansact i on. ” Briefo f D efe n d an t-A p p ella n t a t 3 3. H e a lso p oin ts to h is post- ar re st expla nati on f orwh y he had the g un. M i tte n tol d po l i ce tha t he ha d the g un a t th e apa r tment because Rock

- I sl and’s c itizens di d not l i ke peopl e fro m Chi ca g o a nd tha t he was ha vingpr o bl ems wi tha p ar tic u lar p er so n . Id. M i tt en ’ s ar g um en t i s unc o nv i nc i ng . H i s dr ugt r affi ck i ng cri m e was poss ess i on o fcr ack coca i ne with i ntent to dist ribute. I t i s in further ance o fthatcr i m e th at the g over nm ent c harg ed hi m with posses si on o fa fi re ar m . Thus, th e f ac t th at th e g o ve r nm en t pr es en te d no test i m o ny at tr i althath e e verso l d drugs fro m the apart m ent o r car ri ed the gun w i th hi m du ri ng actual sal es i s i rr el evant
. The r e i s no r equi r ementtha t a dr ugde al erh ave th e g un20 N o. 09

- 1758 in h is p os se ss ion d u rin g u n c h ar ge d sa les in o r d er for h is po s s e s s i o n o fa fi r e a r m t o b e i n fu r th e r a n c e o fth e c r i me o fp o s s e s s i o n o fc r a c kwi th i nt e ntt o di s t r ib ut e . DE A Sp ecial A gen t Jon John son testifi ed that “[d]rug traffickers w i l l co m m onl y pos ses s fi re ar m s t o prot ect thei r product, to p ro tectthei r drugs, to pro tectthei r cash, to pro tect th ei r l i f e an d e ve n t o pr o te ctthe ir tur f

. ” Eve n i fthe j ur y he ar d no e vi den ce tha t M i tt ens o l d drugs a t th e apart m ent, it d i d know that m or e than $6, 000 w or th ofdrugs and add i ti onalm oneywas i n the apart m ent o n the day the warr ant was exec uted. Drug de al er s deal w i th peopl e w h o ar e o ften desper ate and vi ol ent. They c an n otrely u p on loc al la w en for c em en t t o p ro te c t t h eir i l l ega l pro du ct o r profi ts. In light ofthes e f acts , i t was re aso nabl e f orthe j ury to in fer thatM i tte n’s poss ess i on ofthe gun w as i ntended fo r the pr ote ctio n ofhi s m oney and his st ash. A nd , o fco urs e, th e j ury w as not re quir ed to a cc eptM i tt en ’ s po st-arre ste xpl an at i o n a s to why he had t h e gu n . There were am ple gr ounds to questi on hi s cr edibi l i ty. M i tte n al so ci tes U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ii l and, 25 4 F
. 3d 1264 ( 10 thCi r . 2 00 1) , i n s uppo r t o f hi s ar g um en t th atthe evi d en ce was i nsuffi ci ent t o prove the “i n further ance” el emento fS ec ti o n 9 24( c)
. I n Ii l andth e T en th C irc u it re ver sed a Sec tion 924( c) co nvi cti on o fa drug deal erthat was b as ed upo n a fi r ea r m tha t was f o und in h i s apa r tment dur i nga s ea r ch

. I n Ii l and, how ever, the d efend an t’s dr ug s wer e f o und in a s epara te s to r ag e uni t, a nd the govern m en t offered no evid en ce th e d rugs and gun w ere eve r kept at the s am e plac e or thatthe gun w as eve r acces sibl e when the defendant conducted a dr ug tr an sactio n . Id. at12 74. H er e, by co ntra st, the l oaded gun wasN o. 09

- 1758 21

Pos s es s i on offi ve gr am s or m or e ofcr ac k coc ai ne with i nt en t 5 t o di s t ribut e c ar ri es a m i ni m um s en t en c e of 5 y ear s i m pri s onm en tand a m ax i m um of40 ye ar s i fthe defen dantha s no t p rev iou sly b een con v icted of a felon y d ru g offen se. B eca u se M i t t enha d pre vi ous l y be enc onvi c t ed o fa f el ony drug offense, he faced a m i n i m u m senten ce of 10 ye ars an d a m axim u m o f life . 21 U .S.C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1)(B ). f ound in the s am e a partm en t an d i n cl ose pro xi m i ty to d ru gs a nd m oney . I n f act, i t was f ound in a cl ose t a l ongs i d e a P e p s i b o t t l e wi th a h i d d e n c o mpa r t me n ta nd abov e a nothershel fwh er e a ci garbo x conta i ni ng $1 76 w as f ound. The j ury here had suffi ci ent e vi dence to concl ud e that the gun was poss ess ed in fur ther ance o f th e d rug tr affi cki ng cr i m e, and i ts ver dictcannotbe d ist u rb ed

.
III
. M itt en ’s fin al c lai m i s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in const rui ng 18 U
. S. C. § 9 24( c) as m an d at in g a co nsecuti ve sente nce o fatl eas t fi ve yea rs under the ci rcum sta nces of t h is c as e. R ely in g on th e Se c on d C irc u it’s d e c i sio n in U nited S t a t es v. W

hit ley, 52 9 F
. 3d 150 ( 2008 ) , and that ci r cui t’ s ev enmor e r ec en t d ecis i o n i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l l i a ms , 55 8 F
. 3d 166 ( 2d Cir

. 20 09) , M i tte n ar gues that th e f a c tth a th i s u n d e r l y i n gd r u gt r a ffi c k i n gc r i me c ar r i e d a m in im u m se n te n c e o f te n ye ar s e x em p ts h im f ro m the conse cuti ve fi ve- yea r se n tence m andated by Se cti on 9 24( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) wh er e the m i ni m um se ntence f or the underl yi ng cr i m e i s l ess . 522 N o. 09

- 1758 As Mi t t e n a c k no wl e dg e s , thi s C o ur tr ej e c t e d Whit ley ’s i nt er pr et at i o n o fS ec ti o n 9 24 ( c) i n U nited Sta tes v. E a ster, 553 F. 3d 519 ( 7th Ci r. 2009) , as h as eve ryo therci rcui t that h as ad d re ss ed th e is su e. See U nited Sta t e s v . Sega rra , 58 2 F
. 3d 12 69 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 9) ( r ej ec tingc l ai m tha t co nsecuti ve sente nces for c onvi cti ons of§§ 84 1 a nd 92 4( c) un law ful); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Parker, 549 F.3d 5 (1st C ir. 2008 ) ( affi rm i ng co nsecuti ve sente nces f orco nvi cti ons of §§ 84 1, 84 6 a n d 92 4(c )); U nite d State s v . Jolive tt e, 25 7 F
. 3d 581 ( 6th Ci r. 20 01) ( affi rm i ng c on secuti ve sente nces f or ar m ed ba n k ro b b er y a n d § 92 4(c ) co n vic tio n s); U nited State s v. Studif

in , 2 40 F
. 3d 41 5 ( 4th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( affi r m i ng c on se c u tiv e s en te n c es for ro b b er y a n d § 92 4(c )); U ni ted State s v. A laniz , 2 35 F
. 3d 386 (8th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( affi r m i ng con secu tive sent en ces for con victions of §§ 841 an d 924(c)). W e decl i ne M i tte n’s i nvi tat i on t o re vi si t a n i ssue th is C o u r td e c i d e d o n l y a y e a r a g o . No to n l y wa s th e S e co nd Ci r cui t’ s i nt er pr et at i o n o f Sect i o n 9 24 ( c) i n Whit leyfu lly addr es se d b y a thr ee -j udg e pan elo fthi s Cou rti n E a ster, but a m aj or i ty ofthe acti ve j ud ges al so vot ed to deny a peti ti on f or a re hear i ng ofthe case e n b anc . 7th C ir. R. 40(e)
. For the r ea so ns s etf o r thb y thi s Cou r t i n E a ster, we hol d that M i tte n w as not ex em pt fro m the conse cuti ve te r m o fi mpr i s o n me n tma n d a t e d b y S e c t i o n 9 2 4 ( c )
. The dist ri ct c ourtcorr ectl y c oncl ud ed that a s entence o fat l ea stfi ve y ea r s, c o ns ec ut i ve t o M i tt en ’ s dr ugtr affi ck i ng c r i me, wa s ma nd a t e d.N o. 09

- 1758 23 I V. In c on c lu sio n, w e ho ld th at O ffice r C on n elly ’s a f f i d av it w as not so lac ki ng i n probabl e ca use a s t o m ake r el i ance on i t unre aso nabl e. There w as al so suffi ci ent e vi dence to supp or t the j ury’ s v er dicto n the Se cti on 924( c) char ge. Fi nal l y, M i tte n’s ar gum ent that the m i ni m u m te n-y ear se nt en ce t o whi chhe was s ubj ecto n the unde r l y i ngdr ug tr affi cki ng cr i m e r endered hi m ex em pt fro m S ecti on 924( c) ’ s co nsecuti ve sente nce s chem e i s f or ecl ose d by th i s Cou r t’ s pr i o r ho l di ngi n E a ster . A c c or d in gly , h is convi cti on a nd se ntence ar e A FFI RMED .

1- 20- 10