[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 13 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 00 16 -SPM -GRJ -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ERIC J OSEF SCHULZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 13 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 00 16 -SPM -GRJ -2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 1 of 12KELLY ANN SCHULZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Aug us t 1 4, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la nt s Eri c Sch ul z an d Kel ly Schu lz (“ th e Sch ul zes ”) ap pe al th ei r co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to m an uf actur e, di st rib ut e, an d p os se ss with i nt en t t o m an uf actur e an d d is tri bu te m or e th an10 0 m ari juan a p la nt s, i n v io la ti on of 2 1 U.S.C. §§ 84 6, 8 41 (a)( 1) , 84 1( b) (1 )(B) (v ii ). On ap pe al , th e Sch ul zes arg ue th at th e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g t he ir m ot io ns to supp res s s ta te m en ts m ad e be fo re an d dur in g t he sea rch of t he ir p ro pe rty; th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g t he ir m ot io ns to supp res s ev id en ce s ei zedfro m th ei r ho us e; an d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g t he ir m ot io ns to supp res s ev id en ce s ei zedfro m th ei r ba rn . I.

2 Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 2 of 12The Sch ul zes arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin refu si ng to supp res s t he ir

st at em en ts m ad e b efo re an d dur in g t he sea rchof the ir p ro pe rty. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s u nd er a m ix edst an da rdof rev ie w, rev ie win g t he di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r, an d i ts ap pl ic at io n o f la w to th os e fac ts de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba ut is ta -Silva , 56 7 F .3d 12 66 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). All fact s ar e co ns tru edinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p rev ai li ng pa rty bel ow. Se e id . The Fif th Am en dm en t p ro vi de s t ha t “ [n ]o pe rs on . . . sh al l b e co m pe ll edin an y cri m in al cas e to be a wit ne ss ag ai ns t h im se lf.” U.S. Con st . am en d. V. In Mir an da , th e Supr em e Co urt “ es tabl is he d t ha t cu st od ia l i nt erro ga ti on can no t

1 oc cu r be fo re a s us pe ctis warn edof h is or h er ri gh ts ag ai ns t s el f-i nc riminat io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. N

ews ome , 47 5 F .3d12 21 , 12 24 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e ri gh t t o Mir an da warn in gs att ach es at t he st artof c us to di al in te rro ga ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. Lu na -Enc in as , 60 3 F .3d87 6, 8 80 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Pre-c us to di al qu es ti on in g, i n c on tra st , do es no t re qu ire Mir an da warn in gs . Uni te d Sta tes v. Stre et , 47 2 F .3d12 98 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Sta te m en ts ob ta in edin vi ol at io n o f Mir an da are n otadm is si bl e to pro ve th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se at t ria l. Mir an da , 38 4 U.S. at 4 44 -4 5, 8 6 S . Ct. at16 12 . Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 445, 86 S. C t. 1602, 1612 (1966). 1 3 Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 3 of 12Fo r th e p ur po se s o f Mir an da , a de fen da ntis in cu st od y when th ere h as be en a fo rm al arre stor r es tra in t o n fr eed om of m ov em en t o f th e d eg ree a ss oc ia te d wi th a fo rm al arre st . Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 44 1 F .3d13 30 , 13 47 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The tes t i s wh ethe r, un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , a reas on ab le pe rs on in th e d efen da nt ’s po si ti on wou ldun de rs ta ndhi s fr eed om of a ct io n t o b e cu rta il edto a d eg ree a ss oc ia te d wi tha fo rm al arre st . Lu na -Enc in as , 60 3 F .3dat 8 81 . This is anob jecti ve tes t t ha t d oe s n otco ns id er the actua l, s ub jecti ve be li efs of t he de fen da ntor i nt erv ie win g o ffi cer a s t o wh ethe r th e d efen da ntwas fr ee t o l eav e. Stre et , 47 2 F .3dat 1 30 9. We con si de r se ve ral fact or s i n app lying th is tes t,

“ in cl ud in g wh ethe r th e o ffi cers bra nd is he d weapo ns , to uc he d t he su sp ect , or u se d la ng ua ge or ato ne th atin di cat edth atco m pl ia nc e with t he off

ic ers co ul d b e co m pe ll ed .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Se e a ls o Br ow n , 44 1 F .3dat 13 48 -4 9 (h ol di ng th atde fen da ntwas n otin cu st ody in pa rt b ecau se he was i n a fam il ia r se tt in g, h is gi rlf

rie nd ’s ho us e, an d b ecau se , “ [a]ltho ug h a n o ffi cer acco m pani edhi m

th ro ug ho utth e h ou se forsaf ety reas on s, h e was free to eat , sm ok e, us e th e p ho ne , andm ov e ab ou t as he wis he d” ). In te rro ga ti on oc cu rs “ whe ne ve r a p ers onin cu st od y is subjec te d t o e it he r ex pr es s que st io ni ng or i ts fun ct io na l eq ui va le nt ,” whi chrefe rs to word s o r act io ns

“ th atth e p ol ic e sh ou ldkn ow ar e rea so nabl y li ke ly to el ic itanin cri m in at in g 4 Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 4 of 12res po ns e.” Rho de Isl an d v . Inn is , 44 6 U.S. 2 91 , 30 0- 01 , 10 0 S . Ct. 1 68 2, 1 68 9

(1 98 0) . This ex cl ud es , ho wev er, wo rd s o r act io ns no rm al ly atte nd an t t o a rres t an d cu st od y . Id . Add it io na ll y , a de fen da nt ’s vo lu nt eere d s ta te m en ts do no t i m pl ic at e Mir an da . Mir an da , 38 4 U.S. at47 8, 8 6 S . Ct. at16 30 ; se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Ca stro , 72 3 F .2d15 27 , 15 30 -3 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) (ex pl ai ni ng th atvo lu nt ary, un res po ns iv e st at em en ts are o ut si de th e p ro te ct io n o f Mir an da ). Here, we co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in refu si ng to supp res s the Sch ul zes ’ st at em en ts . As to th ei r pr e-Mir an da st at em en ts , th e Sch ul zes were n otincu st od y or s ub jecte d t o i nt erro ga ti on at t he ti m e, su ch th atth e ri gh t t o Mir an da warn in gs ha d n otatt ach ed . Se e Str eet , 47 2 F .3dat 1 30 9. Mo reo ve r, so m e o f th ei r st at em en ts were v ol un te eredan d n otres po ns iv e to an y qu es ti on by the ag en ts . Se e Mir an da , 38 4 U.S. at47 8, 8 6 S . Ct. at16 30 ; se e a ls o Ca stro , 72 3 F .2dat 1 53 0- 32 . In re ga rdto Eric S ch ul z’s po st -Mir an da st at em en ts , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly refu se d t o s up pr es s t he m be cau se th ey

were kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y

m ad e b y E. Schu lz aft er wai ve r of hi s Mir an da rig ht s. Se e Ore go n v. Els ta d , 47 0 U.S. 2 98 , 30 9, 1 05 S. Ct. 1 28 5, 1 29 3 (1 98 5) . Fin al ly, gi ve n t ha t t he Sch ul zes were n ev er i nt erro ga te d, t he ir a rg um en t re ga rd in g atwo -s te p in te rro ga ti on pro ces s i s wi th ou t m eri t. II. 5 Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 5 of 12The Sch ul zes ne xtarg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g t he ir

m ot io ns to supp res s as to th e ev id en ce s ei zedfro m th ei r ho us e. W e m ay affi rm th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s o n a ny gro un d s up po rte d by the reco rd . Uni te d Sta tes v. C ar ab al lo , 59 5 F .3d12 14 , 12 22 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct s t he rig htto be sec ur e ag ai ns t u nr eas on ab le se arch es an d s ei zu res . U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. Ho wev er, the Fo urth Am en dm en t is no t i m pl ic at edwhen po li ce o ffi cers en te r pr iv at e la ndto kn oc k o n acit iz en ’s do orfor leg it im at e p ol ic e p ur

po se s u nc on ne ct edwith asea rchof the pre m is es . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta

ylor , 45 8 F .3d12 01 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The o ffi cers are pe rm it te d “ to kn oc k o n ares id en ce’s d oo r or ot he rwis e ap pr oa ch th e res id en ce se ek in g t o s pe akto th e in habi ta nt s ju st[as ] an y pri va te cit iz enm ay ,” an d a re pe rm it te d s om e m ov em en t awa y fro m th e fro ntdo orde pe nd in g o n t he ci rcu m st an ces . Id . at 1 20 4- 05 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Whe re the Fo urthAm en dm en t i s v io la te d, t he qu es ti on , inco ns id eri ng whet he r ev id en ce i s fru itof t he po is on ou s t ree t ha t m us t b e supp res se d, i s “ whe th er, g ran ti ng es tabl is hm en t o f th e p rimary il le ga li ty, th e ev id en ce t o wh ic h i ns tantob jecti on is m ad e h as be enco m e atby exp lo it at io n o f th atil le ga li ty or in st eadby m ean s su ffi ci en tl y

di st in gu is habl e to be pu rg edof t he pri m ary ta in t.” W on g S un v. Uni te d Sta tes , 37 1 U.S. 4 71 , 48 7- 88 , 83 S. Ct. 4 07 , 41 7 (1 96 3) (in te rn al qu ot at io n 6 Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 6 of 12m ark s o m it te d) .

The Fo urth Am en dm en t fu rth er p ro vi de s t ha t warran ts sh al l b e is su edon ly up on pro babl e cau se . U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. If, u nd er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , “ th ere i s a f ai r pr ob ab il it y

th atco ntrab an d o r ev id en ce o f a cri m e wil l b e fo un d i n apa rti cu la r pl ace,” th enth ere i s a s uf fic ie ntba si s fo r pr ob ab le cau se . Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo pe z , 64 9 F .3d12 22 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . A fair p ro babi li ty is p res en t “ whe n t he fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces wou ldlea d areas on ab ly pru de ntpe rs on to be li ev e th atth e p la ce t o be sea rch edco nt ai ns co nt rab an d o r ev id en ce o f a cri m e.” Id . W he n d eci di ng whe th er a s earc h warran t was supp orte d b y pro babl e cau se , we m

us t co ns id er o nl y th atin fo rm at io n b ro ug htto th e at te nt io n o f th e is su in g ju dg e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo cket t , 67 4 F .2d84 3, 8 45 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). Affi da vi ts supp orti ng a se arch warran t ar e p res um edva li d. Fra nk s v. Dela wa re , 43 8 U.S. 1 54 , 17 1, 9 8 S . Ct. 2 67 4, 2 68 4 (1 97 8) . If, ho wev er, a de fen da ntm ak es a th res ho ldsh owi ng th atth e aff ia ntde li be rat el y

or r eck le ss ly m ad e a fal se st at em en t, the n the de fen da ntis en ti tl edto a Fra nk s he ari ng . Id
. at 17 1- 72 , 98 S. Ct. at26 84 -8 5. If t he de fen dantth enm ak es th atth res ho ldsh owi ng of de li be rat e o r rec kl es s fa ls it y by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, h e is en ti tl ed to a ne w eva lu at io n o f pr ob ab le cau se with t he affi da vi t s tri pp edof t he fal se 7 Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 7 of 12st at em en ts . Se e id .

Fo r pr ob ab le cau se to search a res id en ce, the re m us t b e so m e n ex us be twee n th e p rem is es an d t he all eg edcri m in al act iv it y . Uni te d Sta tes v. Br adle y , 64 4 F .3d 12 13 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 2 S . Ct. 2 37 5 (2 01 2) . This do es no t requi re an all eg at io n i n t he supp orti ng affi da vi t t ha t cr im in al act iv it y to okpl ace a t th e res id en ce, b utitdo es requi re tha t t he affi da vi t s ho w a co nn ect io n b etween th e de fen da ntan d t he res id en ce an d ali nkbe twee n the res id en ce an d t he cri m in al act iv ity . Uni te d Sta tes v. K ap or de lis , 56 9 F .3d12 91 , 13 10 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). Pro babl e cau se ex is ts to supp ort a s earc h o f a d efen da nt ’s res id en ce wh ere t he re i s ev id en ce t ha t t he de fen da ntis in po ss es si on of c on traba ndth atis of t he type th at wou ldno rm al ly be h id de n a t o ne ’s res id en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. An to n , 54 6 F .3d 13 55 , 13 58 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (n ot in g t ha t, ac co rd in g t o a ffi da vi t, fe de ral ag en ts ha d ob se rv edde fen dantwith fi rearm s atgu n s ho ws, an d a ffi da vi t fu rth er s ta te d t ha t, ba se d upo n fe de ral ag en t’s ex pe rie nc e, co nv ic te d fe lo ns an d fi rearm s d eal ers po ss es si ng co nt rab an d t y pi cal ly sto re the se it em s o n t he ir p ro pe rty); se e a ls o Uni te d Sta tes v. J

en ki ns , 90 1 F .2d10 75 , 10 81 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (n ot in g t ha t affi da vi t s ta te d t ha t FB I ag en t, wh o h adsp en t t eny ears in ve st ig at in g b an k ro bb ery an d b ur gl ary m at te rs , adv is edth atde fen da nt ’s res id en t was m os t l ik el y hi di ng pl ace o f ev id en ce o f th e th eft ). 8

Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 8 of 12Dis tri ctco urts sh ou ldge ne ral ly notsupp res s ev id en ce o bt ai ne d b y off ic ers ob jecti ve ly acti ng in reas on ab le rel ia nc e upo n s uc h warran ts ev enwhen th e co urt ul ti m at el y

fin ds th e se arch warran te d u ns up po rte d b y pro babl e cau se . Uni te d St at es v. Leo n , 46 8 U.S. 8 97 , 92 2- 23 , 10 4 S . Ct. 3 40 5, 3 42 0 (1 98 4) . Und er thi s so -cal le d “ go od -fai thex cep ti on ,” “ supp res si on is ne ces sa ry on ly if th e o ffi cers were d is ho ne stor r eck le ss in pre pa rin g t he ir a ffi da vi t o r co ul d n otha ve ha rb or ed anob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e b el ie f in th e ex is te nc e o f pr ob ab le cau se .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Rob in so n , 33 6 F .3d12 93 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . In co ns id eri ng go odfai th , “ we subs cri be to a st an da rdwhi ch is foc us ed on a reas on ab ly w el l-t rai ne d o ffi cer a ndis ba se d upo n t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Taxa ch er , 90 2 F .2d86 7, 8 72 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). It is in di cat iv e o f go odfai th th atanoff ic er co ns ul ts with apro se cu to r be fo re s eek in g a se arch warran t an d s ub m it s i t t o ane ut ral m ag is tra te . Id . Also , inde te rm in in g whe th er an off

ic er re as on ab ly reli edup on a se arch warran t, we m ay lo okbe y on d th e fo urco rn ers of the affi da vi t an d warran t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma rt in , 29 7 F .3d 13 08 , 13 18 -1 9 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 2) . The Leo n go od -fai th ex cep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry rul e d oe s n otap pl y , ho wev er, i n fo ursi tu at io ns :

9

Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 9 of 12(1 ) whe re the m ag is tra te or ju dg e in is su in g awarran t was m is le d b y

in fo rm at io n i n a n a ffi da vi t t ha t t he affi an t kne w was fa ls e o r wou ld ha ve kn ownwas fa ls e ex cep t fo r hi s re ck le ss di sr eg ardof t he tru th ; (2 ) whe re the is su in g m ag is tra te who ll y ab an do ne d h is jud ic ia l ro le ; (3 ) whe re the affi da vi t s up po rti ng th e warra ntis so lac ki ng in in di ci a of pro babl e cau se as t o re nd er o ffi ci al be li ef i n i ts ex is te nc e en ti rel y un reas on ab le ; an d (4 ) whe re, d ep en di ng up onth e ci rcu m st an ces of th e p art ic ul ar ca se , a warran t i s s o fa ci al ly defi ci en t– i.e., i n fa il in g t o pa rti cu la riz e th e p la ce t o b e se arch edor t he th in gs to be sei zed–tha t th e ex ecu ti ng off

ic ers can no t re as on ab ly pres um e itto be va li d. Rob in so n , 33 6 F .3dat 1 29 6. Here, we co nc lu de th atth e Sch ul zes ’ cl ai m th atth e ag en ts ’ en try on to th ei r pr op erty vi ol at edth e Fo urth Am en dm en t an d re nd eredth e subs eque nt ly seiz ed ev id en ce frui t o f th e p oi so no us tre e, is witho utm eri t. The ag en ts ’ va li d kno ck
an d- ta lkdi d n otim

pl ic at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. Se e Ta yl or , 45 8 F .3dat 1 20 4- 05 . Mor eo ve r, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in refu si ng to st rik e la ng ua ge fro m

th e aff id av itun de rlyin g t he warran t b ecau se th e Sch ul zes di d n ot sh ow b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t an y lan gu ag e was fal se an d de li be rat el y

or r eck le ss ly inc lu de d. Se e Fra nk s , 43 8 U.S. at17 1- 72 , 17 1 9 8 S . Ct. at26 84 -8 5. Fi na ll y , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in fin di ng th at pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d t o s earc h t he Sch ul zes ’ res id en ce, g iv enth atth e aff id av it un de rlyin g t he warran t es tabl is he d ane xu s b etweenth e res id en ce an d the all eg ed cri m in al act iv it y . Se e Ka po rdel is , 56 9 F .3dat 1 31 0. In an y ev en t, ev enif t he

10 Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 10 of 12se arch warran t was no t s up po rte d b y pro babl e cau se , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t the Leo n go od -fai th ex cep ti on wou ldne ga te an y ap pl ic at io n o f th e ex cl us io na ry

rul e. III. The Sch ul zes furth er ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g t he ir m ot io ns to supp res s t he ev id en ce s ei zedfro m th ei r ba rn . Fo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti on s ar e subjec t t o h arm le ss erro r an al y si s, in cl ud in g wh ere t he de fen da nten te reda co nd it io na l g ui lt y pl ea. Uni te d Sta tes v. Rhi nd , 28 9 F .3d69 0, 6 92 -9 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . A dis tri ctco urt’s erro r in fai li ng to supp res s ev id en ce i s h arm le ss if t he ot he r ev id en ce o f gu il t was so ov erwh el m in g th atth e d efen dantsu ffer edno pre jud ic e fro m

th e im pr op erl y adm it te d e vi de nc e. Id . at 6 94 ; se e a ls o Uni te d Sta tes v. Del an cy , 50 2 F .3d12 97 , 13 15 n.1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 20 07 ) (n ot in g i n d ic tath atan y erro r in refu si ng to supp res s ce rta in ev id en ce was ha rm le ss be cau se th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce d idno t af fecteit he r th e d efen da nt ’s Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es off en se lev el or t he st atut ory off en se he was c ha rg edwith vi ol at in g) . Here, ev en if we as su m e, ar gu en do , th at th e di st ric t cou rt erred in refu si ng to supp res s th e ev id en ce se iz ed fro m th e Sch ul zes ’ barn , we co nc lu de th at th e erro r was ha rm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Any erro r by th e di st ric t co urt di d no t ha rm th e 11 Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 11 of 12Sch ul zes , gi ve n th at th ere was an ov erwh el m in g a m ou nt of ot he r ev id en ce ag ai ns t

th em an d th at th e ev id en ce fro m th e ba rn di d no t ev en m at eri al ly affe ct th e se nt en ce im po se d. Se e Rhi nd , 28 9 F.3 d at 69 4; se e al so Dela nc y , 50 2 F.3 d at 13 14 -1 5 & n.1 2
. Fo r th e afo rem en ti on ed reas on s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r de nyin g th e fo urm ot io ns to supp res s an d we a ffi rm th e Sch ul zes ’ co nv ic ti on s. AFFIRMED.

12 Case: 11-15135 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 12 of 12