FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT FEB 27, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1256 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00597 -CR- 1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DE RRIC K JO NE S, a. k. a. D er ri ck D w ay ne Jon es , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- (F eb ru ar y 27 , 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: De fendant-Appellant D erric k Jones app eals his convictio ns and sentences af te r a j ur y tr ia l f or ( 1) pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o di str ibu te c oc ai ne ba se ( cr ac k) , 212

U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 )( B) (i ii) a nd 8 51, ( 2) pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o di str ibu te
m ar ij uana , 21 U
. S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 )( D ) an d 85 1, a nd ( 3) be ing af el on i n poss es sio n of

af ir earm , 18 U
. S. C. § 92 2( g)
. N o r ev er sib le e rr or ha s be ensho w n; w e a f f i rm. Inthi s c as e, pol ic e of

fi ce rs , w ho h ad

aw ar rant a uth or iz ing Jon es ’ s arr es t,
w en t t o an A tlanta -are a hot el loo kin g f or him
. O ff ic er s f ir st w en t t o r oom

306 , w he re Jon es ha d r eg ist er ed a s ague st unde r a fa lse nam e; but of fi ce rs la te r fo und Jo ne s i n ro om

51 4 a nd arre st edhi m . Jo ne s ra is es sev eral is su es on ap pe al ; an d we
w ill c onsi de r ea chc la im

in tur n. A
. A dm iss ionof

L ay T es tim ony

by O ff ic er K ev in O tts Jones argues that the dis trict court er red in allowing Of

ficer Otts to testify

as a lay w itn es s. W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e vid en tiary r uli ngs fo r ab use of di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Tin oc o, 3 04 F.3d 10 88 , 11 19 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Fe de ra l R ule of E vid en ce 701 pr ovi de s th at e vid en ce of

fe re d by alay w itn es s is adm iss ibl e w he n th e opi nio ns o r inf er en ce s are “ (a ) ratio na lly ba se d onthe pe rc ep tio n of

the w itn es s, ( b) he lpf

ul t o ac le ar

und er standi ng o f the w itn es s’F e d e r a l R u l e o f E v i d e n c e 7 0 2 d i s c u s s e s e x p e rtt e s t i m o n y i nth i s w ay: 1 I f sc ie nti fi c , tec hn ic a l, or oth e r spe c ia lize d kno wl e dg e wi ll as sis t th e tr ie r o f f a c t to u n d er s tand the evide nce or to determine a

fac t in issue, a witness qualified a s an e xpe rt by kn ow le dg e , skil l, expe ri e nc e , tr a ini ng , o r e du c atio n, may te sti fy the re to i n the fo rm of an o pin ion

or oth e rw ise , if

(1 ) t he te sti mony

is b a se d u po n s uf fi c ie nt f a c ts or data , (2) the te stimony is the product of reliable principles and me thods, and (3) the witness has a

pplied the principles a

nd methods reliably

to the fac ts of the ca se. 3 testim ony or the determ ination of a f act in issue, and (c ) not based on scienti fic, te ch ni cal , or o th er s pe ci al iz edkn owl ed ge wit hi n t he sco pe of Rul e 7 02 .” 1 H er e, O ff ic er O tts ’ s te sti m ony

inc lud ed ( 1) howthe narc oti cs se iz ed in thi s case w ere packaged, ( 2) the street value of the seiz ed drugs, (3) that f irear m s are use d f or pr ote ct ionbe ca

use the narc oti cs bus ine ss i s dange ro us, a nd ( 4) that, thr oughhis e xpe ri en ce , O ff ic er O tts ha d le ar

ne d th at the quanti ty

a nd p ac ka gin g of
narc oti cs c anind ic at e w he the r narc oti cs are int en de d f or dis tr ibu tio n and tha t the
m ar ij uanaquanti ty

se iz ed in thi s c as e ind ic at ed

that i t w as int en de d f

or di st rib ut io n. W e ha ve e xpl ai ne d th at

of fi ce rs c ante sti fy

a s lay w itn es se s “ba se d up on the ir part ic ulari ze d kn ow le dge garn er ed f ro m y ears of e xpe ri en ce w ith in the fi el d. ” T am

paBay S hip bld g. & Re pa ir

Co
. v. Ce dar Sh ipp ing Co
. , 320 F . 3d 1 213, 12 23 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (co ns id eri ng off ic er t es ti m on y

in cri m in al cas es ). Andwe ha ve pe rm itt ed

of fi ce rs te sti fy ing a s lay

w itn es se s to “ giv e opi nio n te sti m onyRule 701 was ame nded in 2000 to add subsec tion (c). Althoug h Novaton conc erne d application 2 of the pre -ame ndment version of Rule 701, we have opine d that Novat o n d o es not “re quire a differ ent findingafte r Rule 701’s amendment.” See Tampa Ba y Shipbldg., 320 F.3d at 1223 n.17. J ones’s re liance on our

decisions in United States v. Gar cia, 447 F .3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2006), and 3 United States v. Dulcio, 441 F .3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006), is mispl ace d. In Gar cia, we explained that the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in pe rm itt ing an of fi c e r to te sti fy a s a

n e xpe rt wi tne ss about, amongother thing s, “how drugtraff icki ngoperations compartmentalize cer tain operations and role s”; but we did not discuss whether a police office r can testify as a lay witness. 447 F.3d at 13 34 -3 5; s e e F e d. R.E vid . 7 01 a dv iso ry com mi ttee ’s no te on 20 00 ame ndme nt ( “ Ce rt a inl y it i s possible f o r th e s ame w it

n e s s to p r o v id e b o th la

y an d e xp e rt te s ti mo n y in a s in g le c a s e .”). A nd, unlike the pre sent ca se, Dulcio c oncer ned an of fice r’s spec ialized testim ony ab o u t “t h e modus opera ndi of people involved in the drug business, tying eac h co-de fenda nt’s role to that ty

pically seen in a nar cotics importing busine ss.” 441 F.3d a t 1274-75. 4 ba se d onthe ir

pe rc ep tio ns and o n th ei r ex pe ri en ce a s po lic e of fi ce rs about

the
m eanin g of

c ode w or ds e m

plo y ed by the de fe ndants in the ir

int er ce pte d te le phon e conversations .” U nited States v. N ovaton , 271 F. 3d 96 8, 1009 (11th Cir. 2001 ). 2 For these re asons, the district court did n ot abuse its d iscretion in determ ining that O ff ic er O tts ’ s te sti m ony

w as pe rm itt ed

by F ed
. R. E vid
. 701
. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. 3 A y al a- Pi zarr o, 407 F . 3d 2 5, 28- 29 ( 1st Ci r. ), c er t. de nie d, 126 S
. Ct
. 247 ( 2005 ) (ap p l yin g p o s t -a m en d m en tv er s i o n o f R u l e 7 0 1 an dco n cl u d i n g t h at o ff i ce r’s te sti m ony - - ab out ( 1) howa“ dr

ug p oin t” w orks and ( 2) that he ro in o ft enis

“ pa ck ed in al um inu m

de ck s” a nd the he ro in s ei ze d w as “ in the sha pe or m an ne r of a deck” - - w as lay

testim ony ). B. Adm issio n of Phy sical E vidence and Statem ents Made by Jones5

Jone s c ha lle nge s th e adm iss ionof e vid en ce se iz ed

f ro m the hot el w he re he
was arre st edas we ll as s ta te m en ts m ad e to fed eral ag en t J oe l Sh ep pa rd . “ As
ru lin gs o n m oti ons to s uppr es s in vol ve m ixe d qu es tio ns o f fa ct a nd l aw , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ac tua l f ind ing s are r ev ie w ed

und er the c le ar ly

e rr one ous standard , while that court’ s application o f the lawis subject to de novo review. ” U nited St at es v. Ram os, 12 F
. 3d 1 019, 102 2 ( 11th C ir
. 199 4)
. A nd w e co nstru e al l f ac ts in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p rev ai li ng pa rty, in t hi s ca se th e g ov ern m en t. Uni te d S ta te s v . Beh et y , 32 F.3d 50 3, 5 10 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). 1. Co ntr ab an d F ound

in Ro om 514 Whe n of fi ce rs f ound Jon es in ro om

514 , he w as ly ing f

ac e dow n onthe floor behind a couch with his h ands und erneath him
. Jones strug gled as officer s pulled o ut his h ands. A n officer sat on Jon es’ s back and handcuffed him
. Of ficer s saw a black translucent bag und erneath Jones wher e his hands h ad been posit ioned. O ffice rs brought J ones up s o that he was kneeling; and the black bag
rem ained on the floor in front of him
. Of ficer s opened th e black bag, which
co nt ai ne d a su bs ta nc e b ro ke n i nt o c hu nk s l at er d et erm in edto be crac k c oc ai ne , a handgu n, and m arij uana that was divided into sm aller baggies. The district court determ ined that the search of the bag w as perm issib le as a search incident to an
ar re st.6

Jone s arg ue s th at

the se ar chof

the bla ck ba g w as not

a va lid se ar chinc ide nt to his arrest because the cir cum stances of his arre st -- including th at he w as handcuffed and wa lking to another part of the hotel room when the bag w as se ar ch ed a nd tha t se ve ra l of

fi ce rs w er e pr es en t - - ind ic at e that he li ke ly c oul d no t ha ve ob ta in edth e b ag ’s con te nt s.

“ It is we ll settled that a search incident to a law ful arr est is a traditional
ex ce pti on t o th e w ar

rant r equir em en t of

the F ourth A m en dm en t. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Robins on, 94 S.C t. 467, 471 (1973). T his exception provides th at office rs m ay search “ the arre stee’ s person and th e ar ea w ithin his imm ediate control.” Chim el
v. Ca lif or nia , 89 S
. Ct
. 203 4, 204 0 ( 1969 ) (e xpl ai nin g th at a“ gun on a

ta ble or in a draw er” in front of the arr estee can be dangerous to the arr esting officer). “ Such
se ar ch es have lon g be enc onsi de re d va lid be ca use of the ne ed ‘ to r em ove a ny w ea pons that the arr es te e m igh t se ek to use in or de r to r es ist

a rr es t or e ff ec t hi s escape’ and the need to prevent the concealm ent or destruction of evidence.” N ew York v. Belton, 101 S. Ct. 2860 , 2862 (1981) (quo ting Chim el, 89 S.Ct. at 2040). He re, officer s searched the black bag -- on which Jones was lay ing -- pur suant t o alaw fu l se ar chinc ide nt t o an arr es t. Jon es w as sti ll in the hot el r oom w he n th e of

fi ce rs se cure d th e ba g; and the pe rs on who o pe ne d th e door to ro om 514 fo r the pol ic e w as standi ng j ust out sid e of

the r oom . Jon es ha s no t po int ed usBe fore office rs found Jones in room 514, officer s sear ched r oom 3 06 with the permission of 4 Jo n e s ’ s g ir lf

r ie n d , Q u ar le tt a M o r

r is
. A f te r o f f ic e r s d e te r

mi n e d th at Jo n e s w a s n o t in r o o m 306, Morris insisted repe atedly that s h e n ee d ed t o use the bathroom. Be fore letting Morr is use the bathroom, an of

fice r, wh o t es t ified he ha d been involved w ith cases whe re suspe cts had hidden wea pons in toil et tanks, sea

rche d the toilet tank of room 306’s bathroom and discove red a plastic bag containingmarijuana
. On appe al, J ones ar gues that the sea rch of the toilet tank exceede d the scope of intrus i o n al l o we dby

the Four th Amendment. The se izure of marijuana in room 514 during J ones’s a rre st was not unlawful; and e ven if we wer e to assume that t h e s ea rc h of the toilet tank violated the F ourth Amendment, such e rror “does not nece ssarily result i n an automatic reve rsal of the conviction.” See United States v. Khoury , 901 F.2d 948, 960 (11th Cir. 1990) (explaining that “the harmless err or doctrine applies to a fourth amendment violation”). Her e, the jury could consider that office rs lawf

ully seized the marijuana

possessed by

J ones in room 514. 7 to controlli ng autho rity

indicating that officer s could no t search the black bag be ca use Jon es w as r es tr ai ne d; i nst ea d, Jon es c onc ed es that so m e co urts h av e supp orted a sear ch incident to arrest under sim ilar circ um stances. S ee, e. g., United St at es v. Ro m er o, 452 F . 3d 6 10, 619 -2 0 ( 6thCi r. 200 6) ( ex pla ini ng tha t se ar chof nig hts tand w as pe rm iss ibl e be ca use nig hts tand w oul d have be enw ith in handc uf fe d de fe ndant’ s r ea chha d he not be enhandc uf

fe d) ; U nit ed

S ta te s v. Queen, 847 F.2d 346, 349, 353-54 (7th Cir. 1988 ) (per m itting searc h where
arre stee w as handcuffed behind his back and guarded by two ar m ed officer s before
s ea rc h o f c l o s et th re e f

ee taw ay). Th e d i s t ri ctco u rt d i dn o terr i n d en yin g J o n es ’s
m oti on t o su

ppr es s e vid en ce se iz ed

f ro m the bla ck ba g inr oom

514
. 4 2. Jones’s S tatem ents to Agent Sheppard A ge nt S he ppard

dr ove Jon es f

ro m aloc al j ai l t o th e fe de ra l bu ild ing in Atlanta. D uring the drive, Agent Sheppard r ead Jones his Miranda rights and then8

asked Jones if Jon es wa s willing to be qu estioned. Jones replied that he had questio ns about the charges brought against him
. Agent Sheppard told Jones th at Jo ne s fa cedfed eral ch arg es res ul ti ng fro m th e d is co ve ry

of c rackco cai ne , a fi re ar m , a nd m ar ij uanaon the day of his a rr es t a t the hot el
. Jon es the n to ld A ge nt Sh ep pard that the c ra ck

c oc ai ne be lon ge d to “ T ae ” an d th at he ne ve r poss es se d a f i r e a rm. Jone s c ont en ds tha t he did not vol unt ar ily

w ai ve his r igh ts t o r em ai n si le nt
an d to have alaw y er

pr es en t be ca

use A ge nt S he ppard

sug ge ste d th at

he w oul d no t tell Jones abou t Jones’s c harges unless Jo nes waived his Miranda rights. Jones does not dispu te that he rec eived Miranda w arnings from Agent Sheppard bef

ore he m ad e th e st at em en ts in qu es ti on . After a care fu l re vi ew of th e rec or d, we
co nc lud e that Jo ne s w as inf orm ed of his Mi randar igh ts and v oluntari ly w ai ve d hi s rights in speaking to Agent Sheppard w ithou t a law y er. C. Sufficie ncy

of the E vidence

“ Sufficie ncy

of the evidence is a question of law w e re view de novo.” U nit ed S ta te s v. Q uin n, 123 F . 3d 1 415, 142 6 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7)
. “ [W ] e vie wthe
ev ide nc e in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t and drawa ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s and c re dib ili ty

c hoi ce s inf

av or of the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t. ” I d. 1. Po sse ssi on o f Co ntr ab an d f ro m Ro om 514We need not address J ones’s argument about whethe r he posse ssed the mar ijuana found in room 5 306 beca use evide nce of

possession of that marijuana is not nece ssary to uphold J ones’s c onviction. And to the extent that J ones argues t hat t he gover nment did not offe r sufficient evidenc e showing that he int e nd e d to dis tr ibute na rc oti c s, Jone s ha s a

ba nd on e d th is a

rgume nt b e c a

us e he did no t r a ise it until his reply

brief. See United S tates v. B ritt, 437 F.3d 1103, 1104 (11th Cir. 2006) (w e dec line to consider issues ra ised for the first time in reply brief)
. 9 Jones cont ends that the go vernm ent did no t present sufficient evidence that he po ss es se d t he co nt rab an d fo un d i n t he bl ackba g d ur in g h is arre st in roo m 51 4. Po sse ssi on “ can be de m onstrate d by pr oof of e ith er a ct ua l or c onstru ct ive poss es sio n. T o e sta

bli sh c onstru ct ive pos se ssi on, the gov er nm en t m ust sho w ow ne rs hip , dom ini on, or

c ontro l ov er ” the pos se sse d it em . U nit ed S ta te s v. G lov er , 431 F . 3d 7 44, 748 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) ( int er na l qu otatio n and c itatio n om itt ed ). A lth oughaw itn es s te sti fi ed that sh e sawJon es e nte r ro om 514 w ith
on ly a packof c ig aret te s, s ev eral off ic ers tes ti fie d t ha t J on es was l ay in g fa ce d own on to p o f a b la ckba g -- wit h h is ha nd s o n o r ne ar t he ba g -- when he was a rres te d. V ie w ing thi s e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t, w e co nc lud e that a r ea sona ble j ur y c oul d f ind Jon es ha d c onstru ct ive pos se ssi on o f the guna nd
narc oti cs f

ound in the bla ck

ba g. 5 2. Po sse ssi on o f Cr ac k C oc ai ne Jone s ne xt a sse rt s th at

the e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al w as ins uf fi ci en t t o establish th at the substance seized in the black bag was cr ack cocaine. H e ar gues that, beca use the evidence did no t supp ort a finding that he po ssessed crack“ T o o b ta in a c o n v ic ti o n f o r b e in g a f

e lo n in p o s s e s s io no f

a f ir e a r m [ un d e r 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ], 6 the prosec ution mustprove be y o n d a rea sonable doubt that the de fenda nt was (1) in knowing possession of a fir ear

m, (2) a c onvicted fe lon, and (3) that the firea rm aff ecte d interstate c ommerce .” 10 co ca ine , he sho uld

have be ense nte nc ed

onl y f or pos se ssi on o f co ca ine hy drochloride. W e disagree. The Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s d efi ne “ co cai ne ba se ” as “ crac k” co cai ne . U. S. S. G. § 2D 1. 1(c) n. D. “ ‘ Crac k’ is the street nam e for a form of cocaine base, usuallyprepare d by

processing cocaine hy drochloride and so dium bicarbonate,
an d us ua lly

appe ar ing in a lum

py , r oc kli ke f

orm . ” I d. A t Jo ne s’ s tr ia l, S he nik a Linen, a fore nsic chem ist with the Geor gia Bureau of I nvestig ation, testified that she pe rf orm ed a n in fr ar ed

spe ctro sc opy

te st o n th e “ of

f- co lor ed c hunk s” f

ound in the bla ck ba g; and the sub stanc e te ste d po sit ive f or c oc ai ne ba se . L ine n a lso testified that the subs tance w eighed about 10 gram s. L inen’ s testim ony provided sufficient evidence fr om

which the j ury

could determ ine that Jones p ossessed
crac k cocaine; and the district court did n ot err in ca lculating Jo nes’ s adviso ry Guidelines range based on his p ossessi on of crack c ocaine. 3. Ne xus Between F irear m and Interstate Com

m erce Jone s arg ue s th at , a lth oughthe e vid en ce sho w ed that the f ir earm in thi s c as e ha d be enm anuf

ac tur ed in Ca lif or nia a nd w as se iz ed

in G eo rg ia , the gov er

nm en t di d n ot pro ve th atth e fi rear m su ffi ci en tl y

im pa ct edon in te rs ta te co m

m erce . He

6Glover, 431 F .3d at 748 (interna l quotation omit ted). 11 as se rt s th at

w e shou ld r ev isi t our pr ior de ci sio ns tha t e xpl ai n se ct ion922 (g )
re qui re s on ly

am ini m al ne xus to i nte rs ta te c om m er ce . B ec au se “ [o ] nly

ade ci sio n by this court sitt ing en banc or by the United State s Suprem e Court can overr ule a prior panel decision,” U nited States v. Ma chado, 804 F.2d 1537, 1543 (11th Cir. 1986 ), and because the evidence here wa s sufficient to show that the firear m af fe ct ed int er state c om

m er ce , w e re

j ec t Jo ne s’ s arg um en t. AFFIR MED.