FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 10, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1402 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00543 -CR- 1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us W ILLIE C. ANDERSON, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 10, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: W ill ie C. A nde rs on a

ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ionand 1 88- m onth se nte nc e fo r po ss es si on of afir earm

by a con vi ct edfel on , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). O n a ppe al , A nde rs on c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m oti on t o2

supp res s ev id en ce, as well as t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of h is sen te nc e. Alt ho ug h we affir m the district court’ s evidentiary ruling, Anderon’ s preserved Booker ch al le nge r equir es us t o va cate his se nte nc e an d r em an d f or r es en te nc ing . BACKGRO UND Pr ior to tr ia l, A nde rs on h ad

m ove d to sup pr es s e vid en ce obt ai ne d in connection with a search incident to his arrest. At the suppression hearing, Of ficer Chad Alexander of the Atlanta P olice De partm ent testified he and his partner we re flagged down by

Bobby Bell, who then told th e office rs that: (i) a black m ale, we aring a purple coat and blue j eans, had burglarize d the hom e Bell and his wif e w er e re sto ri ng and w as w al kin g to w ar ds O ff ic er A le xande r’ s lo catio n; ( ii) Be ll ha d f oll ow ed thi s in div idu al ( A nde rs on) a ft er he ha d le ft

Be ll’ s ho use ; and ( iii ) Be ll sawA nde rs on r ec ove r a handgun f ro m his le ft -f ro nt p an t po ck et

and p la ce it in h is f ro nt c oa t po ck et . O ff

ic er A le xande r furthe r te sti fi ed that: (i ) af

te r Be ll m ad e the se state m en ts, O ff ic er A le xande r w itn es se d abla ck m al e w eari ng a

pur ple co at and b lue j eans a

ppr oa ch ing the m ; ( ii) Be ll ide nti fi ed that i ndi vid

ua l a s th e perpetrator, say ing, “ that’ s him .” O ffice r A lexander stated that he and his partner then approached Anderson, who had hi s hands in his pockets . The police order ed A nde rs on t o r em ove his hands fr om his poc ke ts, and b ec au se of his r el uc tanc e to do s o, the y

or de re d hi m

to his kne es . A le xande r the n c ondu ct ed a“ qui ck f ri sk” of3

Anderson’ s person, during which he felt a har d object w ith the feel and shape of a handgu n. T he officer s rem oved the item , which proved to be a loaded se m iaut om at ic weap on . The o ffi cers th en pl acedAnd ers on un de r arre st . To t he ex te ntth atAlex an de r’s te st im on y co nf li ct edwit h B el l’s o wn testim ony , the m agistrate expressly cre dited Alexander’ s testim ony , f indin g that Bel l’s eq ui vo cat io ns an d l ap se s o f m em ory ren de redhi m

a le ss cred ib le wit ne ss . Ba se d onA le xande r’ s te sti m ony , the m ag istrate ’ s r ep ort c onc lud ed that the of fi ce rs ha d pr oba

ble c au se to ar

re st A le xande r an d to c ondu ct alaw fu l w ar rantl es s se ar chinc ide nt t o th e ar re st. I n th e al te rn at ive , the m ag istrate co nc lud ed

that the of

fi ce rs c ondu ct ed

alaw fu l “ sto p and f

ri sk, ” the r es ult s of w hic h th engave the m

pr oba ble c au se to ar

re st Ande rs on. T he m ag istrate ac co rd ing ly

r ec om m en de d ade nia l of

A nde rs on’ s su

ppr es sio n m oti on. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed

the m ag istrate ’ s r ep ort. Fo llo w ing asti pul at ed

be nc h tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound A nde rs on g uil ty of vio la tin g 18 U . S. C. § 92 2 ( g) (1 ) (2 005) . A t se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that A nde rs on h ad

thr ee pr ior

vio le nt f el ony c onvi ct ion s, sub

j ec tin g hi m

to the m inim um fiftee n-y ear sentence m andated by 18 U. S. C. § 924 (e). T he district court g r an t e dana d d i t i o n a l e n h an c e men tb e yo n dth e f i f t e e n - ye ar mi n i mum, f

i n d i n g b y a4

pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce that A nde rs on w as usi ng the w ea pon in c onne ct ion wit h b ur gl in g B el l’s h om e – a cri m e o f whi chAnd ers on was n ev er co nv ic te d. A nde rs on o bj ec te d to the c ourt’ s e nhanc em en ts b as ed on B lake ly

v. Was h i n g t o n , 1 2 4 S. Ct . 2 5 3 1 (2 0 0 4 ). Th e d i s tri ct co u rto v erru l edAn d er s o n ’s Bl ak el y obj ec tio ns, r el y ing on o ur de ci sio n inU nit ed

S ta te s v. S an ch ez , 269 F . 3d 1250 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) , w hic h he ld tha t the pr inc ipl e em bodi ed in Bl ak el y

ha d no application to the U. S. Sentencing Guidelines. A fter the district court granted an offense-level r eduction for acceptance of responsibi lity , the guidelines range wa s 188 to 2 35 m onths. T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed A nde rs on t o 18 8 m onths i n pr iso n, the m ini m

um se nte nc e pe rm iss ibl e unde r the gui de lin es , but e igh t m onths ab ove the statut or

y m ini m um se nte nc e pr es cr ibe d by

§ 92 4( e) . A nde rs on a

ppe al s. STA ND AR

DS OF RE VIEW

“ T his c our

t r ev ie w s adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of ade fe ndant’ s m oti on t o supp re ss unde r a m ixe d st an dard of r ev ie w , r ev ie w ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s of f ac t un de r the c le ar ly

e rr one ous standard

and the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ionof lawto tho se f

ac ts d e novo . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. D es ir , 257 F . 3d 1 233, 123 5- 36 ( 11th Cir. 2001 ). Be ca use A nde rs on m ad e his Bl ak el y obj ec tio n be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt, pr es er vin g it f or appe llate r ev ie w , w e re vie whis se nte nc e de nov o, but w ill r ev er se5

an d r em an d on ly

f or harm fu l e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ri le y , 250 F . 3d 1 303, 130 7 n.5 (11th Cir. 2001 ). SUPPRESSI ON OF TH E EVI DENCE A s athr es hol d m atte r, A nde rs on t ak es iss ue w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s of f ac t. S pe ci fi ca lly , A nde rs on p oin ts t o th e co nf lic t be tw ee n te sti m ony

giv enby Alexander and that giv en by Bell, contendin g that Bell’ s testim ony is m ore credible than Of

ficer Ale xander’ s testim ony . How ever, because the trier of fac t rem ai ns in a supe rio r po si ti on to jud ge a wit ne ss ’s dem ean oran d c red ib il it y , we de fe r to a m ag istrate ’ s c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n inthe f

ac e of c onf lic tin g testim ony unless hi s understand ing of the facts appears to be “unbelievabl e. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Ram ir ez -C hil el , 289 F . 3d 7 44, 749 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . Whe re the r e c o r do f B e l l ’s t e s t i mo n y i n c l u d e dmemo r y l ap s e s an dv a c i l l a t i o n s i nt e s t i mo n y, w e ce rt ai nly

c annot say that the m ag istrate ’ s ve rs ionof the f ac ts, w hic h c re dit s Alexander’ s testim ony , is incre dible. U nder that version of the facts, it becom es clear that Alexander’ s search w as perm issib le. Consist ent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Am endm ents, a police off icer m ay c ondu ct abr ie f, inv es tig at or

y sto p w ith out

aw ar rant whe n he or

she ha s a

“ re as ona ble , art ic ula

ble sus pic ion ” that c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty is af oot . I lli noi s v. W ar dlaw , 528 U . S. 119 , 123 ( 2000 ). “ Re as ona ble sus pic ion ” is a

le ss d em an din g6

standard than prob able cause and re quires consid erably less than a preponderance of the e vid en ce . U nit ed

S ta te s v. S okol ow , 490 U . S. 1, 7 ( 1989 ). H ow ev er , the of fi ce r m ust be able to ar

tic ulate ale ve l of

obj ec tiv e j ust if

ic at ionthat r ise s a

bove m er e inc hoate sus pic ion . W ar dlaw , 528 U . S. a t 12 3, c iti ng T er ry v. O hio , 391 U . S. 1, 27 ( 1968 ). Whe re suc h j ust if ic at ione xis ts, the of

fi ce r m ay c ondu ct a lim ite d w ar

rant- le ss s earc h of

an in div idu al ’ s ou te r cl oth ing in ana tte m pt t o dis co ve r w ea

pons . T er

ry , 391 U . S. a t 30 . In this case, Alexander clear ly possess ed “ reasonable suspicion ” to conduct a T er ry f ri sk o f A nde rs on. B el l ha d f la gge d do w n A le xande r an d in fo rm ed him that a black m ale individual wearing a purple coat and blue je ans had burglarized the hom e he and his wife we re r estoring, wa s carr y ing a concealed gun, and wa s traveling towards their location. A fter B ell relay ed this inform ation to Alexander, the y both w itn es se d abla ck

m al e w eari ng a

pur ple c oa t and b lue j eans c om ing towards them . Bell identified the indiv idual by say ing, “ that’ s him .” When A le xande r ap pr oa ch ed , A nde rs on w as r es ist an t t o r em ove his hands fr om his f ro nt pockets. T aken together, this inform ation reasonably suggest ed to Alexander that And ers on ha d ju stco m

m it te d abu rg la ry

an d was arm edwit h aco nc eal edweap on . Su chinf orm at ionis obj ec tiv el y

suf fi ci en t t o r ise to the le ve l of “ re as ona ble susp icion” for a T erry

frisk. Though Anderson relies on Florida v. J. L. , 529 U. S.Be cause we c onclude that Ale x ander initially had rea sonable suspicion to conduct a Te rry 1 frisk, and upon discove ry

of the c oncea led wea

pon possessed proba

ble ca use to arr est, we ne ed not rea ch the district c ourt’s alternative holding that Alexander had probable cause to arre st Anderson prior to friskinghis person. 7 266, 270 (200 0), that c ase involvedinform ation received via telephone from an an ony m ous inf orm an t – an“ unkn ow n c al le r, a t an un known lo catio n. ” Be ll can no t b e cat eg or iz edas a n a no nym ou s i nf orm an t: he pe rs on al ly flag ge d d own A le xande r an d di re ct ly

c onve y ed

the inf orm at ionabout

A nde rs on. J. L . and i ts ins ist en ce on i ndi ci a of

an anon ym ous in fo rm er’s rel iabi li ty are in ap po si te . W e thu s a gr ee w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t A le xande r poss es se d r ea sona ble sus pic ionof

c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty , and c ondu ct ed ape rm iss ibl e T er

ry f ri sk o n Anderson. O nce the T erry frisk revea led the concealed w eapon of which Bell had 1 warned, A lexander had probable cause to arre st Anderson and to cond uct a m ore th or ou gh sea rch in ci de ntto th atarre st . SENTE NCING

“ A ny f ac t ( oth er than apr ior

c onvi ct ion ) w hic h is ne ce ssary to supp ort a se nte nc e ex ce ed ing the m ax im um auth or iz ed

by the f ac ts e sta bli she d by

aple a of guilt y or a j ury verdict m

ust be adm itted by

the defendant or proved to a j ury be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Un it edSta te s v . Boo ke r, 12 5 S .Ct. 7 38 , 75 6 (2 00 5) . Following Book er, the sentencing gu idelines are advisory , though a district court8

m ust stil l consult them

along with the factors found at 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a). Id. at 764- 65. H ow ev er , Bo oke r ne ith er dis tur bs a dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

bil ity to re ly on p ri or co nvi ct ion s to e nhanc e a de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e, U nit ed S ta te s v. O rd

uno- Mi re le s, 04-126 30, 2005 U.S . App. L EX IS 5442 at *6 (11th Cir. April 6, 2005 ), nor does Bo oke r en ab le adis tr ic t c ourt t o e m plo y it s di sc re tio n to im

pose ase nte nc e be low the pr es cr ibe d st at

uto ry m ini m um . U nit ed

S ta te s v. S he lto n, 400 F . 3d 1 325, 133 3 n.1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . W e thu s r ej ec t A nde rs on’ s in iti al c ont en tio n th at Bo oke r pr ev en te d th e di st ric t co ur t –rat he r th an a jury – fro m fin di ng hi s t hr ee p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s. Bo oke r its el f m ak es c le ar that a dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ac t- fi ndi ng a s to pr ior

c onvi ct ion s w orks n o S ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n. B ooke r, 125 S . Ct . a t 75 6; s ee a lso , O rd uno- Mi re le s, 200 5 U . S. App. L E X IS 544 2 a t *6 . T hus, the re is no co nst itu tio na l B ooke r er

ro r in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s a s to A nde rs on’ s pr ior convictio ns, nor its consequent ial application of the § 92 4(e)( 1) statutory m inim um which re sulted. Moreover, there c an be no non -constitut ional

“ statut or y ” Bo oke r er

ro r in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

§ 92 4( e) (1 ), be ca

use Booker’ s excise of the statutory provisio n that m ade the guidelines m andatory left un di st urbe d s ta tu to ry

m in im um s. Sh el to n, 4 00 F.3dat 1 33 3 n .10 .Ander son does not raise hi s claim, made be low, that the pre dicate a g g ravated stalking 2 conviction does not satisfy the def inition of a “violent felony” for § 924 purposes. Nonetheless we note that the Ge org ia cour ts ha ve interpre ted the ag g ravated stalking offe nse (Ga . Code. Ann. § 16-5- 91(a) ) to requir e “a

knowingand willful course of conduc t direc ted at a spe cific pe rson which c auses emotional distress by

placingsuch per son in reasona ble fe ar of

deat h or bodily

harm.” See F ly

v. State, 494 S.E.2d. 95, 97 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). 9 W e lik ew ise f

ind no m er it in Ande rs on’ s arg um en t tha t B ooke r re qui re s a j ur y to fi nd tha t the pr ed ic at e co nvi ct ion s qu al if ie d a s “ vio le nt f

el oni es ” w ith in the m eanin g of

18 U . S. C. § 92 4( e) (2 )( b) . T o th e co ntr ar y , the que sti on o f w he the r the 2 pr ior f el oni es qua lif

y a s “ vio le nt” r em ai ns a

m atte r of lawto be de te rm ine d by

the co urt. T his is m ad e cl ear by the S upr em e Co urt’ s r ec en t de ci sio n inS he pard v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (2005). S hepard rea ffirm ed that “ a co urt se nte nc ing under [§ 924(e)] could loo k to statut ory elem ents, char ging docum ents, and j ury ins tr uc tio ns t o de te rm ine w he the r ane ar lie r co nvi ct ion ” qua lif ie d a s avio le nt felony . Shepard, 125 S.Ct. at 1257 (em phasis add ed). While Shepard thus lim ited th e c a t e g o r i e s o f

mat e r i a l ac o u rtc o u l dc o n s i d e r i nmak i n g i t s “ v i o l e n tf

e l o n y” determ ination , it in no way unsettled a court’ s power to pass on this m atter of law or even suggested it wa s appropriate for j ury consideration. Ac cord United State s v. S ch lif er , N o. 04- 3398 , 200 5 U . S. App. L E X IS 561 3 a t *7 ( 7thCi r. Apr il 7, 2005 ) (r efusing to “ parse out the recidivism inqui ry ” w here a

ppellant argued that j udge’s f indin gs as to whether prior convictions were for cr im es of violence violated Sixth Am endm ent); United State s v. Mar cussen, N o, 04-2935, 2005 U. S.10

App. L E X IS 587 7 a t *5 ( 8thCi r. Apr il 11, 200 5) ( hol din g th at S he pard “ le nds further support to th e rule that the se nte nc ing c ourt , not a j ury , m ust de te rm ine whether prior conviction s qualify as violent felonies”) (em phasis add ed). N one the le ss, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d e nga ge in fa ct -f ind ing be y ond its co nc lus iona s to A nde rs on’ s pr ior c onvi ct ion s and the ir

status a s “ vio le nt f

el oni es ” unde r § 92 4( e) (2 )(b) . S pe ci fi ca lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound by apr ep onde ranc e of the e vid en ce that A nde rs on c om m itt ed bur glary of Be ll’ s r es ide nc e pr ior

to his arre st, and used the concealed fir earm found on his person in connection with that burglary . Though the Georgia courts never c onvi cted Ander son of the bu rglary of fe nse , the dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d onte sti m ony pr es en te d to the m ag istrate a t the s up p re s s i o nh ea ri n g t o re ac h i t s co n cl u s i o nas t o th e b u rg l ary an dth e w eap o n ’s re l at i o nth er et o . Th e d i s tri ct co u rtth en u s edth o s e f i n d i n g s t o en h an ce An d er s o n ’s of fe nse le ve l by

f our poi nts pur suant t o § 2 K 2. 1( b) (5 ) of the gui de lin es . I n so doi ng, the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly vio la te d A nde rs on’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts unde r Bo oke r. B ec au se A nde rs on’ s ob j ec tio ns b el owpr es er

ve d th is i ssu e, and w he re the gov er

nm en t ha s no t e ve n arg ue d th at thi s B ooke r er

ro r w as harm le ss, we va cat e And ers on ’s sen te nc e an d re m an d fo r re-s en te nc in g. AF FIRMED IN P AR T; V AC ATE D A ND RE MA ND ED IN P AR T.