## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A u gu s t 10, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 3270 AL VE RE Z M c CU L L OUGH, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t.

__________________________________ U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 3280 J AM I M OS L E Y, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR- 2 0 0 0 6 - 0 1 - 0 2 - J W L) M a tth e w M . R o b in so n o f R o b in so n & B ra n d t, C in c in n a ti, O h io , fo r D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t, A l ver ez M cC ul l ough. C arl E . C ornw el l , (J essi ca J. T ravi s, w i th h i m on the b ri ef), of C ornw el l , E ri ckson , T ravi s, B r e e r& S c h e r f

f , O l a th e , K a n s a s , f

o rD e f e n d a n t - A p p e l l a n t , J a m i M o s l e y. Sher i P. M cC r acke n, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney( E r i c F. M el gr en, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , w i th heron t he br i efs ) , D i s tr i ctof K ans as , K ans as C i ty , K ans as , forPl ai nt i ffA ppel l ee.-2-

B ef o re B R I S C O E , E B E L , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es. B RI S CO E , C i r cui tJ udge. D efe ndant s A l var ez M cC ul l ough and J ami M os l eyw er e convi ct ed fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al on var i ous drug and w eapons - r el at ed cha r ges , and w er e s ent ence d t o l engthy t erm s of i m pr i s onm ent . M os l eynow appea l s herconvi ct i ons , ar gui ng ( 1) the evi dence w as in su ff

ici en t t o su p p o rth er c o n sp ir ac yco n v ict ion , (2) the jury ’s ve rdicts w ere i ncons i s t entand the evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor therconvi ct i on form ai nt ai ni ng a reside n ce fo r th e p u rpo se o f sto ri n g co ca ine, an d (3) h er c o u n ts of co n v ict ion are m u lti p licito u s. M o sle yd o e s n o t ap p e a l h e r se n ten c e . M c C u llo u g h a p p e a ls b o th h is c o n v ictio n s a n d se n ten c e , arg u in g (1 ) th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s uppr es s evi dence , ( 2) the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on fornew tr i al bas ed u p o n n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e , (3 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt th re e o f h is c o n v ic tio n s , a n d (4 ) t h e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s u n re a s o n a b le . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d a f f i r m. I. D efe ndantM os l eyi s the ow nerof a r es i dence l ocat ed at3244 C l evel and A venue, i n K ans as C i ty , K ans as , w hi ch had a s ecur i tys y s t em i ns t al l ed byA D T Secur i tySer vi ces ( A D T ) . A tappr oxi m at el y8: 18 p. m . on J une 9, 2003, A D T ’ s m oni t or i ng cent err ece i ved-3-

an al arm s i gnal fr om the s ecur i tys y s t em i n M os l ey ’ s r es i dence . A n A D T r epr es ent at i ve pl ace d a t el ephone c al l t o t he r es i dence and an i ndi vi dual i dent i fy i ng her s el f as H eather G o rd o n a n sw e re d . G o rd o n , h o w e v e r, w a s u n a b le to p ro v id e th e A D T re p re se n tativ e w ith M o s l e y’ s p e r s o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c o d e , s o th e A D T r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a l l e d th e K a n s a s C i ty, K a n sa s P o lice D e p a rtm e n t (K C K P D ) a t ap p ro x im a tely8 :2 1 p .m . T h a t ca ll res u lted in O ffi cer s Sandr a C arr er a and G eor ge Si m m s bei ng di s pat ched t o the r es i dence . A tappr oxi m at el y8: 23 p. m , aft erO ffi cer s C arr er a and Si m m s w er e di s pat ched, t he s e c u r i tys y s t e m a tth e r e s i d e n c e wa s r e s t o r e d a n d a u t o ma t i c a l l yr e s e t . I n tu rn , a n ADT re p re s e n ta tiv e c a lle d th e K C K P D a t a p p ro x im a te ly 8 :2 6 p .m . to c a n c e l th e a la rm c a ll. B e c a u se o f

f icia l K C K P D p o licyd o e s n o t p e rm it a 9 1 1 o p e ra to r to c a n c e l an a lar m c a ll o n c e o f f ice rs h a v e b e e n d isp a tch e d to th e sc e n e , the 9 1 1 o p e ra to r w h o re c e iv e d th is sec o n d ca ll fro m A D T d id n o t r ep o rtthe c all to either the p o li ce d ispa tche r or O ff icers C arr era and S i m m s. O ffi cerC arr er a w as the fi r s tt o arr i ve atthe r es i dence . U pon herarr i val , s he obs erved a w om an, l at eri dent i fi ed as G or don, s t andi ng i n the dr i vew ayand a man, l at er i dent i fi ed as R i char d C ook, l eavi ng fr om a s l i di ng gl as s doorthatl ead f r om the bas ement ar ea of the home di r ect l yont o t he dr i vew ay . A ccor di ng t o O ffi cerC arr er a, G or don and C o o k “ w e re g ru n g y , d irtyin n a tu re ,” a n d lo o k e d “ lik e p ro b a b lyth e yh a d n ’t c h a n g e d th e ir c lo th e s in a f

e w d a y s . . . .” M o s le yA p p . a t 3 3 3 . G or don i m m edi at el yappr oache d O ffi cerC arr er a and s t at ed thatthe s ett i ng off of the al arm w as an ac ci dent . O ffi cerC arr er a, i n r es pons e, as ked G or don i f s he and Cook-4-

w er e the homeow ner s . G or don s t at ed “no, ” thats he and Cook w er e w or ki ng put t i ng up a pr i vacyfenc e atthe hous e. I d. at332. G or don fur thers t at ed thatC ook, w ho w as s t andi ng nearbyobs ervi ng the conve r s at i on and appe ar i ng di s or i ent ed, had s om e type of m edi cal condi t i on thatpr event ed hi m fr om s peaki ng. A ccor di ng t o O ffi cerC arr er a, G or don “j us ts eemed nervous ” and ke ptl ooki ng atC ook w hi l e C arr er a w as ques t i oni ng her . I d. at333. O ffi cerC arr er a as ked G or don and C ook fori dent i fi cat i on, butnei ther one had a ny . O ffi cerC arr er a then as ked G or don w ho the homeow ner s w er e and G or don “satthere and cou l dn ’trecal l theirnam es and justhad no i dea w ho . . . the h om eow ners” w er e. I d. at335. G or don di d, how ever , i ndi cat e thatthe al arm w as fal s e, thats he had cont act ed the homeow nert o obt ai n the al arm code, and thats he had s ucce s s ful l yr es ett he s e c u r i tys y s t e m. O ffi cerC arr er a i nform ed O ffi cerSi m m s , w ho had j us tarr i ved on the s cene , that s he w as goi ng t o go i ns i de the r es i dence t o chec k the al arm panel . O ffi cerC arr er a then as ked G or don t o s how herw her e the al arm panel w as . E nt er i ng the hous e thr ough the open fr ontdoorof the mai n l evel , G or don l ed O ffi cerC arr er a t o the al arm panel , w hi ch w as s i tuat ed nea rthe mai n fl oorki t chen a r ea. O ffi cerC arr er a not ed thata r ed, r athert han a g re e n , lig h t a p p e a re d o n th e p a n e l a n d th a t th e d is p la ym o n ito r w a s f la s h in g “ 0 1 /0 4 ,” w hi ch i ndi cat ed t o herthatther e w as s t i l l an ac t i ve al arm cover i ng the fr ontdoorand m ot i on det ect or s . B as ed upon thes e obs ervat i ons , O ffi cerC arr er a conc l uded thatthe a lar m p a n e l w a s s til l ac tiv e , ev e n th o u g h n o sire n s o r b e e p s c o u ld b e h e a rd . A c c o rd in g to O ffi cer C arr era, this height ened , rather than al l eviat ed, her suspi ci on s.-5-

O ffi cerC arr er a l eftthe hous e and a s ked G or don and C ook w hatbus i nes s theyhad in s id e th e re s id e n c e . A g a in , G o rd o n d id a ll o f th e ta lk in g , w h ile C o o k re m a in e d s ile n t. G or don ul t i m at el yt ol d C arr er a s he knew how t o geti n t ouch w i th the homeow ner s and as ked i f s he coul d cal l them. C arr er a agr eed t o l etherdo s o. U sing a c ell p h o n e, G o rdo n d ial ed a n u m b er a n d sp o k e to s o m eo n e f o r a sh o rt w hi l e. G or don then hande d t he phone t o O ffi cerC arr er a. A ccor di ng t o O ffi cerC arr er a, the per s on on the otherend of the l i ne w as a man w ho deni ed bei ng the ow nerof the re sid e n c e . O f

f ice r C a rre ra h a n d e d th e p h o n e b a c k to G o rd o n a n d sa id “ I n e e d to sp e a k to the homeow ner . ” I d. at336. G or don s poke t o the man on t he phone f oran addi t i onal tim e p e rio d a n d , at th e c o n c lu sio n o f h e r c o n v e rsa tio n , as k e d O f f ice r C a rre ra if

sh e c o u ld m ake a nothercal l . O ffi cerC arr er a agr eed t o l etherdo s o. G or don di al ed a s econd num ber , s poke br i efl y , then hande d the phone t o C arr er a and i ndi cat ed thatthe hom eow nerw as on t he otherend of the l i ne. O ffi cerC arr er a as ked the w om an on the p h o n e if s h e w a s th e o w n e r o f

th e re s id e n c e a t 3 2 4 4 C le v e la n d . T h e w o m a n s a id “ y e s ,” and i dent i fi ed her s el f as J ami M os l ey . O ffi cerC arr er a as ked M os l eyi f ther e s houl d be i ndi vi dual s atthe r es i dence . M os l eyans w er ed af fi r m at i vel y , s t at i ng thatpeopl e w er e at herr es i dence i ns t al l i ng a fe nce. O ffi cerC arr er a t ol d M os l eythats he w as atthe r es i dence b ec au se th e a larm w as g o ing o ff. M o sleyresp o n d ed b ysay ing “M yalarm ’s go ing o ff ? It s houl dn’ t . ” I d. at337. O ffi cerC arr er a as ked M os l eyw hetherG or don and C ook had perm i s s i on t o be i ns i de the r es i dence . M os l eyr efus ed t o ans w erand w as i ns i s t entthat sh e b e a llo w e d to sp e a k to G o rd o n a g a in . O f f ice r C a rre ra h a n d e d th e p h o n e b a c k to-6-

G or don. D ur i ng the ens ui ng conver s at i on betw een O ffi cerC arr er a and G or don, G or don s t at ed thats he and Cook w er e al l ow ed t o us e the r es tr oom i n the bas ementof the r es i dence . O ffi cerC arr er a as ked G or don w her e i n the bas ementthe r es tr oom w as l ocat ed. A ft err ece i vi ng G or don’ s r es pons e, O ffi cerC arr er a, s t i l l conce rned thats he had in ter ru p ted a b u rg lar yin p ro g re ss , inf o rm e d O f

f ice r S im m s th a t sh e w a s g o in g to g o in to the bas ementar ea of

the r es i dence t o m ake s ur e eve rythi ng w as okayand t o ver i fy G o rd o n ’s s ta te m e n t. O ffi cerC arr er a ent er ed the r es i dence , thi s t i m e thr ough the s l i di ng gl as s doort hat l eads fr om the dr i vew ayi nt o t he bas ement( i . e. , the doorthatC ook w as obs erved exi t i ng w hen O ffi cerC arr er a i ni t i al l yarr i ved atthe r es i dence ) . Fol l ow i ng G or don’ s des cr i pt i on of w her e the r es tr oom w as l ocat ed, O ffi cerC arr er a t ook an i m m edi at e l eftand obs erved a s m al l ki t chen a nd count erar ea. A s s he w as w al ki ng pas tthatar ea i n s ear ch of the r es tr oom , O ffi cerC arr er a obs erved on the ki t chen c ount era cl earpl as t i c bag that appea r ed t o cont ai n a br i ck of mar i j uana. T urni ng t o herl eftt o l eave the r es i dence , O ffi cerC arr er a obs erved on the others i de of the ki t chen c ount era tr as h bag thatw as w id e o p e n a n d c o n ta in e d w h a t a p p e a re d to b e m o re b ri c k s o f m a ri ju a n a . Bas e d u po n Offi c e rCarr e r a ’ s ob s e r va t i on s i ns i de the r e s i de nc e , the K CK PD o b tain e d a se a rc h w a rra n t f o r th e re sid e n c e late r th a t ev e n in g a n d e x e c u ted it i n th e e a rly mo rn i n g h o u r s o f

J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 . Wh e n S t e p h e n Owe n , a d e t e c t i v e wi th th e KC KP D, arr i ved att he s cene t o as s i s ti n the exe cut i on of the s ear ch w arr ant , he w as appr oache d-7-

out s i de the r es i dence byM os l ey . M os l eyt ol d O w en thats he w as the ow nerof the r es i dence and thats he l i ved ther e w i th herchi l dr en and he rboy fr i end, A l var ez M cC ul l ough. M cC ul l ough w as pr es entw i th M os l eyout s i de the r es i dence dur i ng the s ear ch. D ur i ng the s ear ch, the pol i ce f ound i n the bas ementki t chen a r ea the br i ck of m ar i j uana on the count erand the tr as h bag ful l of m ar i j uana br i cks obs erved byO ffi cer C a rre ra . N e a r th e m a riju a n a th e p o lice f o u n d v a rio u s d o c u m e n ts p e rta in in g to b o th M os l eyand M cC ul l ough. I n the bas ementfami l yr oom , the pol i ce f ound w hatthey bel i eved t o be r es i due of c r ack c ocai ne. I n the mai n fl oorki t chen a r ea, the pol i ce f ound ( a) a s hoe box cont ai ni ng a di gi t al s cal e cove r ed w i th s om e s or tof w hi t e pow der , s ever al pl as t i c baggi es w i th a w hi t e s ubs t ance i ns i de them, and a ba ggi e cont ai ni ng w hat appea r ed t o be mar i

j uana, ( b) a gl as s , s auce - type pan w i th w hi t e r es i due on the i ns i de and o u tsid e , (c) a g ro c e ryb a g c o n tain in g w h a t ap p e a re d to b e m a riju a n a , (d ) a p las tic b a g g ie c o n tain in g w h a t ap p e a re d to b e p o w d e r c o c a in e , (e) a b a g g ie c o n tain in g w h a t ap p e a re d to be cr ack c ocai ne, and ( f) a ful l yl oaded RugerP- 90 handgun. I n the mai n fl oorhal l w ay c lo se t, th e p o lice f

o u n d tw o w h ite c y lin d e rs o f c o c a in e w ra p p e d in p las tic, p lu s $ 3 ,2 4 0 in cas h. I n the mast erbedr oom , the pol i ce f ound $2, 767 i n cas h s pr ead outoverthe bed, as w ell as p h o tos a n d d o cu m en ts be lon g ing to M o sleyan d M cC u ll o u g h (i n p arti cu lar a d riv e r’s lice n se b e lo n g in g to M o sle y , an d a K a n sa s s tate id e n tific a tio n c a rd b e lo n g in g to M cC u ll o u g h ). In th e f

ir st of tw o m aster b ed roo m clos ets, the p o li ce fo u n d w o m en ’s cl othi ng, addi t i onal m ar i j uana, and a ha ndgun. I n the s econd of the mast erbedr oom-8-

cl os et s , the pol i ce f

ound m en’ s cl othi ng, a ful l y - l oaded, s emi - aut om at i c as s aul tr i fl e, and a ful l y - l oaded, 20- gauge, pi s t ol - gr i p M os s ber g s hot gun. F o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , M o s l e y a n d M c C u l l o u g h w e r e i n d i c t e d b y a f e d e ra l g ra n d ju ryo n c h a rg e s o f: (1 ) c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te f

iv e k ilo g ra m s o r m o re o f a m ix tu re a n d su b sta n c e c o n tain in g a d e tec tab le amount of coc ai ne and f i ftygr ams orm or e of a m i xtur e and s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a d etec table a m o u n t of

co ca ine b ase , in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 (a)(1), ( b )(1)(A )(i ii ), (i i) (II ), an d 8 4 6 ; ( 2 ) po sses sion w ith inten t t o d istri b u te five g ram s o r m o re o f a m ixture a n d s u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n i n g a d e t e c t a b l e a mo u n to f c o c a i n e b a s e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( i i i ) ; ( 3 ) p o s s e s s i o n wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e f i v e h u n d r e d g r a ms o r m o re o f

a m ix tu re a n d su b sta n c e c o n tain in g a d e tec tab le a m o u n t o f c o c a in e , in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d (b )(1 )(B )(ii)(II); (4 ) p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e a de t ect abl e amountof m ar i j uana, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and ( D ) ; and ( 5) pos s es s i on of a f i r earm ( i . e. , a M os s ber g 20- gauge s hot gun, a Sm i th and W es s on . 38 cal i berhandgun, a D PM S se m i aut om at i c as s aul tr i fl e, and a Ruger. 45 cal i ber h a n d g u n ) in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

a d ru g tra f

f ick in g c rim e (i.e., p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e coc ai ne, coca i ne bas e and mar i j uana) , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) and ( c) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) . M os l eyw as al s o i ndi ct ed on one c ountof m anagi ng and contr ol l i ng, as an ow ner , a r es i dence forthe purpos e of unl aw ful l ys t or i ng and d istri b u ti n g co ca ine, co ca ine b ase an d m arij u an a, i n v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 6 (a)(2). T he ca s e i ni t i al l ypr ocee ded t o tr i al i n l at e O ct oberof 2004. O n N ovember1,-9-

2004, the di s tr i ctcourtdecl ar ed a mi s tr i al beca us e the j uryw as unabl e t o r eac h a u n a n im o u s v e rd ict. A se c o n d trial b e g a n o n N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 . A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f a ll the evi dence , the j uryfound M os l eygui l tyon C ount1 ( cons pi r acy ) and 6 ( m anagi ng and contr ol l i ng a r es i dence forthe purpos e of drug tr aff i cki ng) , and M cC ul l ough gui l tyon C o u n ts 1 (co n sp ir ac y ), 3 (po sses sion w ith inten t t o d istri b u te five h u n d red g ram s o r m o re of coc ai ne) , 4 ( pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e mar i j uana) , and 5 ( pos s es s i on of a f ir e a rm d u ri n g a n d in re la tio n to a d ru g tr a f f ic k in g c ri m e ). Bec a us e the c a s e w a s tr i e d a ft e rthe de c i s i on i n Bl a ke l yv. W a s hi ng t on , 54 2 U. S. 296 ( 2004) , butbefor e the dec i s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , t he di s tr i ctcourtel ect ed t o s ubm i tt o the j ury , fora dec i s i on ut i l i zi ng the “be y ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t” s ta n d a rd , th e s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n ts a lle g e d b yth e p ro s e c u tio n . B a se d u p o n th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted to th e m , the ju ryf o u n d th a t M o sle ye n g a g e d in obs truct i on of j us t i ce w i th r es pectt o hercount s of convi ct i on ( i . e. , byl y i ng underoath at tr i al ) , butdi d notpos s es s a fi r earm i n connec t i on w i th herr ol e i n the cons pi r acy . A s for M cC ul l ough, the j uryfound thathe ac t ed as an or gani zer , m anage rorl eade ri n the cons pi r acyand pos s es s ed fi r earm s i n connec t i on w i th thr ee of the off ens es of convi ct i on. T he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d M os l eyt o the s t atut orym i ni m um s ent ence of 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , a s ent ence w el l bel ow the advi s orygui del i ne r ange of 188 t o 235 m onths . A s forM cC ul l ough, the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d hi m t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent of 3 80 m on ths.-10- II. A . Mos ley’s A

ppeal I n herappea l , M os l eyas s ert s thr ee c hal l enges t o herconvi ct i ons : ( 1) thatthe ev iden ce w as in su ff

ici en t t o su p p o rth er c o n sp ir ac yco n v ict ion ; ( 2 ) th at th e v erd ict s w ere i ncons i s t entand the evi dence i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor therconvi ct i on form ai nt ai ni ng a reside n ce fo r th e p u rpo se o f sto ri n g co ca ine; an d (3) tha t her c o u n ts of co n v ict ion are m ult i pli ci t ou s. F or the reasons ou t l i ned below , w e fi nd no m eri tt o an yof these argum ents and therefore affi rm M osl ey ’s con vict i on s. Suf f i ci ency of

evi dence - cons

pi r acy M o sle yf irst c o n ten d s th a t th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial w a s in su f f icie n t to s u p p o r th e rc o n s p i r a c yc o n v i c t i o n . “ S u f f i c i e n c yo f

th e e v i d e n c e i s a l e g a l i s s u e we rev iew d e n o v o . ” U n it ed S tat es v . G ree n , 4 3 5 F . 3 d 1 2 6 5 , 1 2 7 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In re v ie w in g th e s u f

f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e , w e “ a s k o n ly w h e th e r t a k in g th e e v id e n c e . . . t og et her w i th the r easona ble i nferences t o b e draw n ther efrom – in the li gh tm ost favor abl e t o the governm ent , a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd the def endantgui l tybey ond a rea so n ab le do u b t. ” Id . (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). “A cons pi r acyi n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846 cons i s t s of fourel ement s . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M on t el on go , 42 0 F . 3d 11 69 , 11 73 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ). “T he g ov ernm ent m ust p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t( 1 ) a n a g r e e me n twi th a n o th e rp e r s o n t o v i o l a t e th e l a w, (2) k n o w ledg e o f th e e ssen ti al objecti v es o f th e c o n sp ir ac y , (3) k n o w ing an d v o lun tary i nvol vement , and ( 4) i nt er depende nce a m ong the al l eged c ons pi r at or s . ” I d. ( i nt ernal-11-

q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). H e re , M o sle yd o e s n o t p re c ise lyid e n tifyw h ich o f th e se e lem e n ts s h e is chal l engi ng. I ns t ead, s he ar gues thatthe evi dence es t abl i s hi ng thats he ow ned and l i ved atthe r es i dence at3244 C l evel and and w as pr es entatt i m es w hen M cC ul l ough s ol d drugs w a s in su f

f icie n t to e sta b lish th a t sh e w a s a n a c tiv e m e m b e r o f a c o n sp ira c yw ith M cC ul l ough. She al s o ar gues thatthe governm entfai l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence thats he ( a) per s onal l yhandl ed, conce al ed orw as entrus t ed i n s afe keepi ng anydrugs , ( b) knew fi r earm s w er e i n herr es i dence orthattheyw er e us ed i n anydrug tr ans act i ons , ( c) knew herr es i dence w as bei ng us ed fors t or age of nar cot i cs , ( d) pur chas ed anys uppl i es fort he packa gi ng of drugs , ( e) s ol d, pi cked up orr epac kaged a nydrugs , or( f) w as pai d any m o n e y b y M c C u l l o u g h f o rp a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a d ru g c o n s p i r a c y. 1) E xis t ence of

an agr eem ent

w i th McC ul l ough t o vi olat e the law I n det erm i ni ng w hetherther e w as an agr eementt o comm i tan unl aw ful act , “[t ] he cr i t i cal i nqui r yi s w hetherthe ci r cumst ance s , act s , and conduc tof the part i es [w e] r e of s uch a c har act erthatthe mi nds of r eas onabl e men m ayconcl ude ther efr om thatan u n law f u l ag re e m e n t ex ist[ e d ].” U n ited S tate s v . M o re h e a d , 9 5 9 F .2 d 1 4 8 9 , 1 5 0 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h e e x iste n c e o f a n a g re e m e n t to v io late the l aw “maybe i nferr ed fr om the fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. E v an s, 9 7 0 F . 2 d 6 6 3 , 6 6 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). It is tru e th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e in th is c a se th a t M o sle yd ire c tlyp a rticip a ted in drug tr aff

i cki ng byobt ai ni ng drugs orfi r earm s , tr ans form i ng pow dercoca i ne i nt o cr ackA l though t he governm ent ’ s evi dence i ndi cat ed thatM cC ul l ough keptper s onal 1 bel ongi ngs atM os l ey ’ s r es i dence and s t ay ed ther e on a r egul arbas i s , i tal s o es t abl i s hed thatM cC ul l ough ow ned a s epar at e r es i dence i n K ans as C i ty , K ans as , w her e he som et i m es st ay ed an d als o co nd ucted drug tr ansact i on s. -12- coca i ne, ors el l i ng drugs atherr es i dence . N everthel es s , ourr evi ew of the tr i al tr ans cr i pt l eads us t o concl ude thatthe evi dence pr es ent ed bythe governm entw as m or e than s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a r eas onabl e i nfer ence thatther e w as an agr eementbetw een M os l ey and M cC ul l ough thatM cC ul l ough w oul d us e M os l ey ’ s r es i dence forthe purpos es of 1 drug- tr aff

i cki ng. T he pol i ce w ho s ear ched the r es i dence found l ar ge quant i t i es of coc ai ne an d m arij u an a in v ariou s p arts of the h o u se, i n clud ing the m ain k it ch en are a (tha t th e jury r eas onabl ycoul d have i nferr ed thatM os l eyus ed on a r egul arbas i s ) , a hal l w aycl os et ( w her e M os l eykepti t ems bel ongi ng t o herchi l dr en) and the mast erbedr oom ( i ncl udi ng th e c lo se t w h e re M o sle yk e p t h e r c lo th in g ). L ik e w ise , the p o lice f o u n d f o u r f ire a rm s in the hous e, i ncl udi ng one thatw as s t or ed i n M os l ey ’ s m as t erbedr oom cl os et , as w el l as lar g e a m o u n ts o f

c a sh b o th in th e h a llw a yc lo se t an d th e m a ste r b e d ro o m . In a d d iti o n to the evi dence s ei zed f

r om the home, the governm entpr es ent ed s ever al w i tnes s es w ho t es t i fi ed t o pur chas i ng drugs , i n s om e ca s es i n s ubs t ant i al quant i t i es , fr om M cC ul l ough at M o s l e y’ s r e s i d e n c e w h i l e M o s l e y a n d h e rc h i l d r e n w e r e p r e s e n tth e r e . F i n a l l y, M o s l e y, w ho w as a ful l - t i m e s tudentand had no maj ors our ce of i ncome forher s el f orher chi l dr en, admi t t ed attr i al thats he r ece i ved moneyon a r egul arbas i s fr om M cC ul l ough ( al though s he t es t i fi ed i tw as forpurpos es of chi l d s uppor t ) , and i tw as uncontr overt ed thats he dr ove atl eas tone vehi cl e s uppl i ed t o herbyM cC ul l ough.-13-

2) Know l edge of

the es s ent i alobj ect i ves of the cons pi r acy B a se d u p o n th e e v id e n c e d e sc rib e d a b o v e , w e c o n c lu d e th e ju ryc o u ld re a so n a b ly h a v e f o u n d th a t M o s le yw a s w e ll a w a re o f th e e s s e n tia l o b

je c tiv e s o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y , i.e ., t o pos s es s and di s tr i but e forpr ofi tcoca i ne pow der , coca i ne bas e, and mar i j uana. I ndeed, i ti s di ffi cul tt o i m agi ne thatM os l eycoul d have l i ved i n the hous e w i thoutbei ng aw ar e of th e p re se n c e o f

lar g e q u a n tit ies o f

d ru g s, c a sh , an d d e a d lyw e a p o n s, o r th e f re q u e n t v isits fr om s tr anger s w ho engage d i n t r ans act i ons w i th M cC ul l ough. 3) Know i ng and vol untar y i nvolvem ent W e furtherconcl ude, agai n bas ed upon the evi dence des cr i bed above , as w el l as M os l ey ’ s admi t t ed r el at i ons hi p w i th M cC ul l ough, thatthe j urycoul d r eas onabl yhave f o u n d th a t M o s le yw a s a k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry p a rt ic ip a n t in th e c h a rg e d c o n s p ir a c y . M or e s peci fi cal l y , w e conc l ude the j urycoul d r eas onabl yhave f ound thatM os l ey know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yal l ow ed M cC ul l ough t o us e herhom e forpurpos es of drugtr aff i cki ng. 4) I nt er depende nce “I nt er depende nce e xi s t s w her e ea ch coc ons pi r at or s ’ act i vi t i es cons t i tut ed es s ent i al and i nt egr al s t eps t ow ar d the r eal i zat i on of a c om m on, i l l i ci tgoal . ” U ni t ed St at es v. E dw ar ds , 69 F. 3d 419, 432 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . H er e, t he ev iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al estab li sh ed that M o sleysu p p li ed a re aso n ab lysaf e a n d sec u re r es i dence forM cC ul l ough t o us e forengagi ng i n drug tr aff i cki ng act i vi t i es . I n turn, M cC ul l ough acc om pl i s hed the goal of the cons pi r acybyobt ai ni ng and r es el l i ng atthe-14-

re s id e n c e c o c a in e a n d m a ri ju a n a . I n s um , w e conc l ude the evi dence pr es ent ed bythe governm entattr i al w as s uffi ci entt o s uppor tM os l ey ’ s cons pi r acyconvi ct i on. Suf f i ci ency of

evi dence - m anagi ng r es i dence i n vi olat i on of § 856( a) ( 2) M o s l e yn e x tc o n t e n d s th a tth e j u ry ’ s d e c i s i o n t o c o n v i c th e ro f v i o l a t i n g 2 1 U. S . C. § 856( a) ( 2) ( C ount6) w as i ncons i s t entw i th i t s deci s i on t o acqui therof the s ubs t ant i ve d rug co u n ts ch arg ed in C o u n ts 2 thro u g h 5 . M o re sp ec ifi ca ll y , M o sleyarg u es “ [i]t[w a]s hi ghl yi ncons i s t entt o convi ct [] herof m ai nt ai ni ng and contr ol l i ng a r es i dence on J une 9, 2 0 0 3 – w h i c h r e q u i r e [ d ] h e rt o h a v e k n o w l e d g e th a td ru g s w e r e i n h e rh o u s e o n th a td a y – w h ile a c q u ittin g h e r o f

k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s in g d ru g s o n J u n e 9 , 2 0 0 3 .” M o s le yB r. a t 2 3 . T hus , M os l eyar gues , ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor ther§ 856( a) ( 2) c o n v ictio n a n d th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted h e r m o tio n f o r ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l. T o c o n v ict M o sle yo f

v io latin g 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 6 (a )(2 ) a s a lleg e d in th e in d ictm e n t, the j uryhad t o fi nd thats he ( 1) m anage d and contr ol l ed the r es i dence at3244 C l evel and (2) as an ow ner and (3) kn ow i ng l yand i ntent i on al l ym ade the res i den ce ava i l able for use forthe purpos e of unl aw ful l ys t or i ng and di s tr i but i ng coca i ne, coca i ne bas e and m ar i j uana. U ni t ed St at es v. Pr ent i s s , 206 F. 3d 960, 975 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C hen, 913 F. 2d 183, 187 ( 5th C i r . 1990) . M os l eyadmi t t ed thats he ow ned the r es i dence a n d th e re b ye f

f e c tiv e ly m a n a g e d a n d c o n tr o lle d it b yliv in g in it a s h e r p ri m a ry re s id e n c e . F u rth e r, b a se d u p o n th e e v id e n c e a lre a d yd isc u ss e d , w e c o n c lu d e th e ju ryc o u ld r eas onabl yhave i nferr ed thatM os l eyknow i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l ym ade the r es i denceIn a n ye v e n t, co n sis ten c yin v e rd icts is n o t re q u ire d b e c a u se , “w h e re tru ly 2 i ncons i s t entver di ct s have be en r eac hed, ‘ the mostthatcan be s ai d i s thatthe ver di ct s how s thatei theri n the ac qui t t al orthe convi ct i on the j urydi d nots peak thei rr eal co n clus ion s, b u t th at do es n o t sho w that theyw ere n o t con v ince d o f th e d ef en d an t’ s gui l t . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. Pow el l , 469 U . S. 57, 64- 65 ( 1984) ( quot i ng D unn v. U ni t ed S ta te s , 2 8 4 U .S . 3 9 0 , 3 9 3 (1 9 3 2 ) ( a lte ra tio n s o m itte d .) -15- avail able t o M cC ull ou gh for pu rposes of his drug-traffi cking acti vit i es. N ot abl y , thes e es s ent i al el ement s di d notr equi r e the governm entt o pr ove ei ther th a t d ru g s w e re p re se n t in th e re sid e n c e o n Ju n e 9 , 2 0 0 3 (a lth o u g h th a t w a s f irm ly es t abl i s hed) orthatM os l eyw as aw ar e thatdrugs w er e pr es enti n the r es i dence on that d a te. T h u s, th e ju ry ’s a c q u itt a l o f M o sle yo n C o u n ts 2 th ro u g h 5 (e a c h c h a rg in g h e r w ith pos s es s i on of nar cot i cs w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e on J une 9, 2003) w as noti ncons i s t ent w ith its c o n v ictio n o f

M o sle yo n th e § 8 5 6 (a )(2 ) c h a rg e . T h a t is, the ju ryc o u ld r eas onabl yhave c oncl uded thatM os l ey , w ho w as i n the l at e s t ages of pr egnanc yon J une 9 , 2 0 0 3 , h a d , as sh e tes tifie d a t trial, b e e n sta y in g w ith f rie n d s d u rin g late M a ya n d e a rly J une of 2003, and thus w as unaw ar e of the var i ous drugs found i n and s ei zed f r om the r es i dence on J une 9, 2003, y etneverthel es s know i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l ym ade the r es i dence avai l abl e t o M cC ul l ough on thatdat e forpurpos es of hi s drug- tr aff i cki ng act i vit i es. 2 Mu lti p licito u s c o u n ts In h er f inal arg u m en t, M o sleyco n tend s tha t her tw o co u n ts of co n v ict ion “a re m ul t i pl i ci t ous beca us e theyeac h r el yon the s ame fact s . ” M os l eyB r . at23. “W e o rd in a rilyre v iew c laim s o f m u lti p licityd e n o v o , b u t w h e re ,” a s h e re , “a d e f e n d a n t f a ils to-16-

r ai s e the i s s ue i n a pr e- tr i al m ot i on, ” w e “r evi ew onl yforpl ai n err or . ” U ni t ed St at es v. G r aham, 305 F. 3d 1094, 1100 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “U nderthe pl ai n err ors t andar d, [M os l ey ] m us ts how cl earorobvi ous err ort hat aff ect ed h[e r ] s ubs t ant i al r i ght s and s er i ous l yaff ect ed the i nt egr i tyof the j udi ci al p roc ee d ing s. ” Id . (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted).

“ M u l t i p l i c i tyr e f

e r s t o mu l t i p l e c o u n t s o f a n i n d i c t me n twh i c h c o v e rth e s a me c ri m in a l b e h a v io r.” U n ite d S ta te s v . J o h n s o n , 1 3 0 F .3 d 1 4 2 0 , 1 4 2 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A l though “mul t i pl i ci tyi s notfat al t o an i ndi ctm ent , ” i d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itted), m u lt ipli cit o u s co u n ts w h ich m ayresu ltin m u lt ipli cit o u s co n v ict ion s are cons i der ed “i m pr operbeca us e theyal l ow m ul t i pl e puni s hm ent s fora s i ngl e cr i m i nal o ff en se,” U n it ed S tat es v . Jen k ins, 31 3 F . 3 d 5 4 9 , 5 5 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h is co u rt ’s “j ur i s prudence es t abl i s hes thatm ul t i pl i ci t ous s ent ence s vi ol at e the D oubl e J eopar dy C laus e.” U n it ed S tat es v . M o rri s, 2 4 7 F . 3 d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 3 n . 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T he t es tform ul t i pl i ci ty“i s w hetherthe i ndi vi dual act s [al l eged i n the count s at i s s ue] ar e pr ohi bi t ed, orthe cour s e of [ conduct ] w hi ch theycons t i tut e. ” G r aham, 305 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 0 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). “I f th e f o rm e r, th e n e a c h a c t is puni s habl e s epar at el y . I f the l att er , ther e ca n be butone pena l ty . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s o m itte d ). W h e re m u ltip lic ito u s c o n v ic tio n s a re f o u n d , “ th e o n ly re m e d y. . . is . . . t o vaca t e one of

the under l y i ng convi ct i ons as w el l as the . . . s ent ence bas ed upon i t. . . . ” R ut l edge v. U ni t ed St at es , 517 U . S. 292, 301- 02 ( 1996) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itted).-17-

W e have r epea t edl yhel d t hatthe “c om m i s s i on of a s ubs t ant i ve off ens e and a c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it i t ar e se p a ra te c rim e s b e c a u se th e e ss e n c e o f a c o n sp ira c yc h a rg e is an agr eementt o comm i ta s ubs t ant i ve off ens e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 977 F. 2d 1360, 13 71 (10t h C i r. 19 92 ) ( i nternal quotat i on m arks, i t al i cs, and al t erat i on s om i t t ed). T hu s, f o r e x a m p le, w e “ h a v e h e ld th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d to a llo w im p o sitio n o f se p a ra te s ent ence s fora cons pi r acyconvi ct i on under21 U . S. C . § 846 and forthe s ubs t ant i ve drug o f f e n s e s th a t f

o rm th e o b

je c t o f th e c o n s p ir a c y .” Id . (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). I n U ni t ed St at es v. Stur m os ki , 971 F. 2d 452 ( 10th C i r . 1992) , and l at eri n J ohns on, w e hel d thatconvi ct i ons under21 U . S. C . § 846 and §§ 856( a) ( 1) and ( a) ( 2) ar e not m ul t i pl i ci t ous beca us e the pl ai n l anguage and l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryof § 856 “de m ons tr at e[] that. . . C ongr es s unequi vocal l ydet erm i ned t o cr eat e a di s t i nctoffe ns e – w i th i t s ow n, s epar at e puni s hm ent– ai m ed s peci fi cal l yatcr i m i nal i zi ng the us e of pr opertyfor narcot i cs- rel at ed p urposes. ” S turm oski, at46 1; s ee John son, 97 7 F . 2d at13 75 . T ho se hol di ngs cl ear l ycontr ol her e, w her e M os l eyw as convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng §§ 846 and 85 6(a) (2) . T hu s, w e con cl ud e t hat M osl ey ’s cou nts of co nv i ct i on are notm ult i pli ci t ou s. B . McC ullough’s A

ppeal In h is ap p ea l, M cC u ll o u g h ch all en g es b o th h is co n v ict ion s an d sen tenc e. M o re sp e c if ica lly , M c C u llo u g h c o n ten d s (1 ) th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s uppr es s evi dence s ei zed dur i ng the s ear ch of the r es i dence at3244 C l evel and, ( 2) the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on fornew tr i al bas ed upon new l ydi s cover ed evi dence , ( 3) the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al on-18-

C o u n ts 3 , 4 a n d 5 , an d (4 ) th e se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e d istric t co u rt w a s u n re a so n a b le beca us e the di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o t ake i nt o acc ountthe di s par i tyi n puni s hm entbetw een d e f e n d a n ts c o n v icte d o f

tra f f ick in g in c ra c k c o c a in e a n d th o se c o n v icte d o f tra f f ick in g in pow dercoca i ne. Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed bel ow , w e conc l ude ther e i s no m er i tt o anyof M cC ul l ough’ s cont ent i ons , and w e ther efor e af fi r m hi s convi ct i ons and s ent ence . D enialof m oti on t o sup press M cC ul l ough cont ends the di s tr i cterr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence s ei zed dur i ng the s ear ch of the r es i dence at3244 C l evel and. W hen r evi ew i ng the deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e cons i derthe evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the g o v e rn m e n t, an d a c c e p t th e d istric t co u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s u n les s th e ya re c lea rly err oneous . U ni t ed St at es v. H err er a, 444 F. 3d 1238, 1242 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “The u lti m a te d e ter m in a tio n a s to w h e th e r a n o f f ice r’s c o n d u c t v io late s th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, h o w ev er, i s rev iew ed d e n o v o . ” U n it ed S tat es v . L o p ez , 4 4 3 F . 3 d 1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).

“ T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t sa y s th a t th e ‘rig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e se c u re in th e ir per s ons , hous es , paper s , and ef fec t s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es , s hal l not b e v io la te d .’” Il lin o is v . M c A rt h u r, 5 3 1 U .S . 3 2 6 , 3 3 0 (2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o tin g U .S . C o n s t., A m dt . 4) . “I t s ‘ centr al r equi r ement ’ i s one of r eas onabl enes s . ” I d. ( quot i ng T exas v. B r ow n, 460 U . S. 730, 739 ( 1983) ) . “I ti s a bas i c pr i nci pl e of Four th A m endmentl aw t hat s ear ches and s ei zur es i ns i de a home w i thouta w arr antar e pr es um pt i vel yunr eas onabl e. ” P a yto n v . N e w Y o rk , 4 4 5 U .S . 5 7 3 , 5 8 6 (1 9 8 0 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).-19-

H ow ever , “[w ] hen fa ced w i th s peci al l aw enfor cementneeds , di m i ni s hed expe ct at i ons of p riv a c y , m in im a l in tru sio n s, o r th e lik e , the [ S u p re m e ] C o u rt h a s f o u n d th a t ce rta in g en era l, o r i n d ividu al, circu m stan ce s m ayren d er a w arran tl ess s ea rch o r seizu re r eas onabl e. ” M cA r thur , 531 U . S. at330. “Speci al l aw enfor cementneeds ” have been hel d t o exi s t , and thus al l ow the pol i ce t o conducta w arr ant l es s s ear ch, w her e the pol i ce

“ h a v e p ro b a b le c a u se to se a rc h th e a re a in q u e stio n a n d e x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s e x ist to m ake the w arr antr equi r ementi m pr act i cal . ” U ni t ed St at es v. E dw ar ds , 242 F. 3d 928, 939 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). E v e n in su c h situ a tio n s, h o w e v e r, th e sc o p e o f th e w a rra n tles s s e a rc h is

“‘ s tr i ct l yci r cumscr i bed bythe exi genci es w hi ch j us t i f[i ed] i t s i ni t i at i on . . . . ’ ” M i nceyv. A ri zo n a, 43 7 U . S . 3 8 5 , 3 9 3 (19 7 8 ) (qu o ti n g T erryv . O h io, 39 2 U . S . 1 , 2 5 -26 (19 6 8 )). I n thi s cas e, the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded “thatthe ac t i ve bur gl aral arm , combi ned w i th otherevi dence [found] atthe s cene [of the r es i dence at3244 C l evel and] , cr eat ed an exi gencythatj us t i fi ed O ffi cerC arr er a’ s w arr ant l es s entr i es i nt o the home. ” M cC ul l ough A pp. , V ol . 1 at36. I n hi s appea l , M cC ul l ough ar gues ther e w as no need f orO ffi cer C arr er a’ s i ni t i al entr ybeca us e “s he had a l r eadyr ece i ved a r eas onabl e expl anat i on fr om G o rd o n th a t sh e w a s w o rk in g o n a p riv a c yf e n c e ,” a n d th is e x p lan a tio n w a s e f f e c tiv e ly ver i fi ed “be caus e of the obvi ous cons truct i on i n the y ar d and the fa ctG or don and C ook w er e di r tyfr om the cons truct i on of the fe nce. ” M cC ul l ough B r . at24. M cC ul l ough f u rth e r a rg u e s th a t, “[ e ]v e n if th e in iti a l en tryin to th e re sid e n c e w a s p e rm itt e d in o rd e r to chec k the bur gl aral arm , ” O ffi cerC arr er a’ s “r enew ed entryand s ear ch of the bas ement w ith o u t a w a rra n t w a s n o t su p p o rte d b ye x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s.” Id . at 1 6 . A c c o rd in g to-20-

M cC ul l ough, “O ffi cerC arr er a r ece i ved a l ogi cal expl anat i on fr om G or don as t o her pr es ence atthe r es i dence and w hythe al arm w as tr i gger ed and thatexpl anat i on w as corr ob orat ed b ya ph on e cal l t o M osel y[si c]. ” Id. at16 -17. In sum , M cC ull ou gh argues, “itw as c lear tha t a bu rglaryw as n o t i n p rog ress a n d the f ruit s fro m O ff

icer C arrera ’s s ear ch of the r es i dence s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed. ” I d. at17. No t a b l y , M c Cu l l o u g h d o e s n o td i s p u t e th a ta p o l i c e o f f i c e rr e s p o n d i n g t o a n a l a r m, su c h a s O f

f ice r C a rre ra , ca n c o n d u c t a s e a rc h if h e o r sh e re a so n a b lysu sp e c ts th a t a b u rg lar yo r so m e o th e r typ e o f c rim e is in p ro g re ss . A lth o u g h w e h a v e n e v e r d ire c tly a d d re ss e d th e iss u e , o u r sis ter c irc u its a p p e a r to u n a n im o u slya g re e , an d re a so n a b lyso in ourvi ew , “thatan off

i cerm ayl aw ful l yent era r es i dence w i thouta w arr antunderthe e x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s e x c e p tio n w h e n th e o f f ice r re a so n a b lyb e liev e s a b u rg lar yis in pr ogr es s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. B r ow n, 449 F. 3d 741, 748 ( 6th C i r . 2006) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 9 F. 3d 506, 509 ( 6th C i r . 1993) ( ci t i ng and di s cus s i ng cas es fr om var i ous ci r cui t s ) . T hus , the ques t i on ati s s ue her e i s w hetherthe fa ctual ci r cumst ance s c o n f ro n tin g O f

f ice r C a rre ra w e re su f

f icie n t to g iv e h e r p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t a bur gl aryw as i n pr ogr es s atthe r es i dence at3244 C l evel and. A l though M cC ul l ough ar gues otherw i s e, w e conc l ude thatO ffi cerC arr er a had a part i cul ar i zed a nd obj ect i ve bas i s forconcl udi ng thatther e w as “a pr obabi l i tyor s ubs t ant i al chanc e” thata bur gl aryw as i n pr ogr es s at3244 C l evel and and thatG or don and C ook w er e i nvol ved i n t hatbur gl ary . I l l i noi s v. G at es , 462 U . S. 213, 245 ( 1983) ( defi ni ng pr obabl e ca us e) ; s ee ge ner al l yU ni t ed St at es v. C oncepc i on- L edes m a, 447 F. 3d-21-

1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( d is c u s s in g d e n o v o re v ie w o f p ro b a b le c a u s e d e te rm in a tio n ). W h e n sh e w a s in iti a llyd isp a tch e d to th e re sid e n c e , O f f ice r C a rre ra w a s in f

o rm e d th a t a s e c ur i tya l a r m had be e n tr i gg e r e d a tthe r e s i de nc e . Thus , i n a c c or da nc e w i th KC K PD p ro to c o l, O f

f ice r C a rre ra ’s r e sp o n sib ili tyw a s to re sp o n d to th e re sid e n c e in o rd e r to i nves t i gat e and, i f the al arm w as canc el l ed, t o m ake s ur e thatthe ac tual hom eow nerw as r es pons i bl e forthe ca ncel l at i on. U pon herarr i val atthe r es i dence , O ffi cerC arr er a w as confr ont ed w i th tw o peopl e w ho w er e unus ual l ydi r tyi n appea r ance , di d nothave a ny form of per s onal i dent i fi cat i on, w er e admi t t edl ynotthe homeow ner s , di d notknow the n a me o f th e h o me o wn e r , a n d we r e a c t i n g i n a n e r v o u s ma n n e r . F u r th e r , o n e o f th e two p e o p le ( i.e., C o o k ), w a s o b se rv e d lea v in g th e re sid e n c e w h e n O f f ice r C a rre ra a rriv e d , d id n o t m a k e a n ya ttem p t to sp e a k to h e r, an d w a s a c tin g d iso rie n ted . T a k in g in to a c c o u n t all o f th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t O f f ice r C a rre ra ’s in iti a l w a rra n tles s e n tryin to the r es i dence t o chec k t he s t atus of the s ecur i tyal arm panel w as j us t i fi ed byexi gent ci rcum st ances. Fur ther , nei therO ffi cerC arr er a’ s chec ki ng of the s ecur i tyal arm panel , northe e v e n ts th a t en su e d th e re a f ter , co u ld re a so n a b lyh a v e se rv e d to les se n h e r su sp icio n th a t a cr i m e w as i n pr ogr es s . A l though G or don t ol d O ffi cerC arr er a thats he had s poken t o t he hom eow nerand r es etthe al arm , O ffi cerG or don concl uded otherw i s e w hen s he i ns pect ed the s ecur i tyal arm panel . A s not ed, O ffi cerG or don det erm i ned thatthe al arm panel had not , i n fac t , been r es et , and w as s t i l l i ndi cat i ng thatther e had be en a di s turbance of theA tthe hea r i ng on hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , M cC ul l ough att empt ed t o es t abl i s h t hat 3 O ff icer C arrera re-tr igg ere d the a larm w h en sh e e n tered the re side n ce . T h e d istri ct co u rt fo u n d that, reg ard less o f w h ethe r th at w as true , itw as u n co n tr o v erted that O ff icer C arrera w a s u n a w a re o f

th is f a c t an d in ste a d su b

jec tiv e lyb e liev e d th a t G o rd o n h a d f a lse ly c laim e d th a t th e a lar m h a d b e e n re se t. -22- f ro n t d o o r a n d m o tio n d e tec to rs. W h e n O f f ice r C a rre ra th e re a f

ter a llo w e d G o rd o n to 3 cont actthe homeow nerbycel l phone, G or don fi r s tputO ffi cerC arr er a i n t ouch w i th a m an w ho deni ed bei ng the homeow ner . G or don then made a s econd c al l and thi s t i m e put O ff icer C arrera in tou ch w ith a w o m an w h o p u rpo rt ed to b e the h o m eo w n er. H o w ev er, th e w o m a n se e m e d to a c t su rp rise d w h e n in f o rm e d th a t h e r a lar m w a s g o in g o f f (d e sp ite G or don al l egedl yhavi ng al r eadys poken t o heraboutthe pr obl em) a nd r efus ed t o r es pond t o O ffi cerC arr er a’ s ques t i on aboutw hetherG or don and C ook had author i tyt o be i ns i de the r es i dence . W e r eadi l yagr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthat , “[r ] atherthan corr obor at i ng the exi s t ence of a f

al s e al arm , thes e eve nt s onl yi ncr eas ed O ffi cerC arr er a’ s s us pi ci on and once a gai ns tj us t i fi ed furtheri nves t i gat i on. ” M cC ul l ough A pp. , V ol . 1 at41. L as t l y , w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatthes e ci r cumst ance s gave O ffi cer C a rr e ra “ re a s o n a b le g ro u n d s to b e lie v e th e re w a s a n im m e d ia te n e e d to p ro te c t th e . . . pr opertyof the homeow ner. . . . ” I d. at42. I n otherw or ds , i n addi t i on t o havi ng pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve a bur gl aryw as i n pr ogr es s , the ci r cumst ance s pr ovi ded O ffi cer C arr er a w i th a r eas onabl e bas i s forconcl udi ng thatthe w arr antr equi r ementw as i m pr act i cal . H ad s he l eftthe s cene t o obt ai n a w arr ant , O ffi cerC arr er a cl ear l yr i s ked al l ow i ng a pot ent i al bur gl aryt o cont i nue, ther ebypl aci ng the cont ent s of the r es i dence at 3244 C l evel and ati s s ue, and l i kel yal l ow i ng the tw o obvi ous bur gl arys us pect s t o fl ee.-23-

In su m , w e c o n c lu d e th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied M c C u llo u g h ’s m o tio n to supp res s. D eni alof m ot i on f ornew tr i al- new l

y dis cove r ed ev i dence A ttr i al , the governm ent , as partof i t s cas e- i n- chi ef, pr es ent ed t es t i m onyfr om fi ve convi ct ed fe l ons ( E dw ar d C arvi n, M ar l on H ay es , A rnol d M oor e, C or eyW i l l i ams, and D om i ni c H ay es ) , al l of w hom had pl ed gui l tyt o drug- r el at ed cr i m es , w er e i ncar cer at ed at the s ame corr ect i onal fac i l i tyi n K ans as ( appar ent l ya fa ci l i tyoper at ed byC orr ect i onal C o rpo rati o n o f A m erica (C C A )), an d w ere test ify ing o n b eh alf o f th e g o v ern m en t as p art of thei rr es pect i ve pl ea a gr eement s . A l l fi ve of thes e w i tnes s es t es t i fi ed t o havi ng tr av eled to the reside n ce at 32 4 4 C leve land to o b tai n d rug s, an d three o f th e f ive (E d w ard C arvi n, A rnol d M oor e, D om i ni c H ay es ) t es t i fi ed t o havi ng actual l yent er ed the hous e and d ir ec tl yp u rch ase d d rug s fro m M cC u ll o u g h . Ind ee d , tw o o f th ese three (A rno ld M o o re and D om i ni c H ay es ) t es t i fi ed t o havi ng pur chas ed s ubs t ant i al quant i t i es of drugs fr om M cC ul l ough ( i . e. , M oor e t es t i fi ed thathe pur chas ed coc ai ne fr om M cC ul l ough m or e than thi r tyt i m es ; D om i ni c H ay es t es t i fi ed thathe l i kew i s e pur chas ed s ubs t ant i al amount s of co ca ine f rom M cC u ll o u g h , as w ell as b etw ee n 2 5 0 to 3 0 0 p o u n d s o f m arij u an a). O n M ar ch 18, 2005, appr oxi m at el yfourm onths aft erhe w as convi ct ed, M cC ul l ough s enta l ett ert o the di s tr i ctcourts t at i ng thathe had “ di s cover ed fr om i nm at es ” ata C C A fac i l i tyw her e he w as bei ng hel d pendi ng s ent enci ng thatthes e fi ve governm entw i tnes s es had cons pi r ed t o pr ovi de fa l s e t es t i m onyattr i al agai ns thi m and M os l ey . A t t ache d t o M cC ul l ough’ s l ett erw er e w r i t t en s t at ement s fr om ni ne i nm at es-24-

confi ned atthe s ame C C A fac i l i ty( butnotanyof the fi ve governm entw i tnes s es w ho te s tif ie d a g a in s t h im ). A s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s u b s e q u e n tly n o te d , the s t at ement s of thes e i nm at es , t aken t ogether , s ugges t ed thatthe i nm at es had ov erheard the five coo perat i ng w i tnesses conspir i ng t o p rovi de fa l se t es t i m onyattr i al i n or dert o r ece i ve dow nw ar d departur es ; thatthe i nm at es had been off

ered t o “b uy ” i nfo rm at i on con cerni ng M r. M cC ull ou gh ’s case to en ab le th e inm ate to testi fyat tri al an d there b yrec eive a d o w n w ard d ep arture; an d that so m e o f th e g o v ern m en t’ s co o p era ti n g w itn esse s w ere “s el l i ng” i nform at i on aboutM r . M cC ul l ough’ s cas e s o thatotheri nm at es coul d “j um p on” the ca s e and r ece i ve a dow nw ar d departur e. M cC ul l ough A pp, V ol . 1 at127. O n A pr i l 5, 2005, M cC ul l ough, thr ough couns el , fi l ed a form al m ot i on fornew tr i al bas ed upon thi s purpor t ed “ne w l ydi s cover ed evi dence . ” I d. a t 1 0 8 . T he di s tr i ctcourthel d a mul t i - dayevi dent i aryhear i ng on the mot i on i n ear l yM ay 2005. D ur i ng the hea r i ng, M cC ul l ough pr es ent ed t es t i m onyfr om s i x of the ni ne i nm at es w ho had pr evi ous l ypr ovi ded hi m w i th w r i t t en s t at ement s , and the governm entpr es ent ed e a c h o f th e f iv e c o o p e ra tin g w itn e s s e s w h o h a d te s tif ie d f o r t h e g o v e rn m e n t a t tr ia l. Fol l ow i ng the hea r i ng, the di s tr i ctcourti s s ued a l engthym emora ndum and or derdeny i ng M cC u ll o u g h ’s m o ti o n fo r ne w tr ial . In d o ing so , the d istri ct co u rtn o ted th at, “[ f]o r a v arietyo f re aso n s, ” itd id n o t believe m o st of the testi m o n yp rov ided b yM cC u ll o u g h ’s w i tnes s es . I d. at133. “I n s om e i ns t ance s , ” the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed, “the s ubs t ance of the t est i m on yprovided b ydefe nd ants ’ w i tnesses s i m plydefie[d] al l com m on sense and , t hu s, l ack[ ed] cr edi bi l i ty . ” I d. at133- 34. “O thert es t i m ony , ” the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed, “contr adi ct ed ce r t ai n extr i ns i c evi dence and, forthatr eas on, [w as ] notcr edi bl e. ” I d. at-25-

134. “I n otheri ns t ance s , ” the di s tr i ctcourtfound, “def endant s ’ w i tnes s es contr adi ct ed eac h otheron keyfac t s , r ender i ng the t es t i m onyunw or thy . ” I d. “Fi nal l y , ” the di s tr i ct courtfound, “bas ed on the t ot al i tyof the evi dence pr es ent ed atthe hea r i ng, . . . thati f any c o n s p ir a c yto p re s e n t f

a ls e te s tim o n ye x is te d , . . . it w a s in itia te d a t th e d ir e c tio n o f . . . M cC u ll o u g h an d w as c arried o u t atthe e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g b ef o re th[ e] c o u rt . ” Id . M o re s peci fi cal l y , the di s tr i ctcourtfound “thatdefe ndant s ’ w i tnes s es agr eed t o pr ovi de w r i t t en s t at ement s t o . . . M cC ul l ough and t o t es t i fyatthe hea r i ng” forone of thr ee r eas ons : out of “pe r s onal l oy al tyt o . . . M cC ul l ough ( the evi dence atthe hea r i ng demonstr at ed that m o s t, if n o t a ll, o f

d e f e n d a n ts ’ w itn e s s e s w e re c lo s e a s s o c ia te s o f . . . M c C u llo u g h ’s ),” “bas ed on a s tr ong di s l i ke forthos e i nm at es thatchoos e t o cooper at e w i th the governm ent , ” “orbas ed on s om e combi nat i on of thes e tw o m ot i vat i ons . ” I d. at145. T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o found thatM cC ul l ough “ha[ d] a hi s t oryof obs truct i ng j us t i ce by c o n sp irin g to p re se n t f

a lse tes tim o n y ,” id . at 1 4 8 , an d a c tiv e lyso u g h t “w ritten sta tem e n ts fr om i nm at es [i n t hi s m att er ] r egar dl es s of w hetherthos e i nm at es had anyper s onal know l edge r egar di ng the truthful nes s of the coope r at i ng w i tnes s es ’ t es t i m onyattr i al . ” I d. at147. U l t i m at el y , the di s tr i ctcourtfound thatno cons pi r acyexi s t ed among t he fi ve c o o p e ra tin g g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s e s . I n hi s appea l , M cC ul l ough cont ends the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on fornew tr i al . A ccor di ng t o M cC ul l ough, a “j urys houl d have he ar d” the evi dence pr es ent ed atthe evi dent i aryhear i ng “and s houl d have made th[e] cr edi bi l i tyj udgement [s i c] ; notthe j udge. ” M cC ul l ough B r . at31.-26-

“ A m o tio n f

o r a n e w trial b a se d o n n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e is n o t f a v o ra b ly r egar ded and s houl d be gr ant ed onl yw i th gr eatcaut i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C om bs , 267 F. 3d 1167, 1176 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T o pr evai l on s uch a m o tio n , a d e f

e n d a n t m u st p ro v e : “( 1) the evi dence w as di s cover ed af t ertr i al , ( 2) the fa i l ur e t o l earn of the evi dence w as notcaus ed by[hi s ] ow n l ack of di l i gence , ( 3) the new evi dence i s notm er el yi m peac hi ng, ( 4) the new evi dence i s m at er i al t o the pr i nci pal i s s ues i nvol ved, and ( 5) the new evi dence i s of s uch a na tur e that i n a new tr i al i tw oul d pr obabl ypr oduce a n acqui t t al . ” U ni t ed St at es v. L aV al l ee, 439 F. 3d 670, 700 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Q ui nt ani l l a, 193 F. 3d 1139, 1147 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ) . T he deni al of a mot i on fornew t r i al bas ed on new l ydi s cover ed evi dence i s r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on. C om bs , 267 F . 3 d a t1 1 7 6 . A d i s tr i c tc o u r ta b u s e s i t s d i s c r e t i o n w h e n i t s d e c i s i o n i s “ a rb i tr a ry, capr i ci ous , w hi m s i cal , orm ani fes t l yunr eas onabl e. ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itte d ). I n rul i ng on M cC ul l ough’ s m ot i on, the di s tr i ctcourti n thi s cas e conc l uded that M cC ul l ough had s at i s fi ed the fi r s tfourof the fi ve pr ongs nece s s aryforobt ai ni ng a new tr i al ( i . e. , thatthe evi dence w as di s cover ed af t ertr i al , M cC ul l ough’ s fai l ur e t o l earn of the e v id e n c e w a s n o t ca u se d b yh is o w n lac k o f d ili g e n c e , the n e w e v id e n c e w a s n o t m e re ly i m peac hi ng, and the new evi dence w as m at er i al t o the pr i nci pal i s s ues i nvol ved i n the cas e) . I m por t ant l y , how ever , the di s tr i ctcourtal s o concl uded thatM cC ul l ough had fa i l ed t o s at i s fythe fi fth pr ong of the t es t , i . e. , es t abl i s hi ng thatthe new evi dence w as of s uch a natur e thati n a new tr i al i tw oul d pr obabl ypr oduce a n acqui t t al . A l though the di s tr i ct-27-

c o u rt a g re e d th a t th e n e w e v id e n c e , “ if b e lie v e d , w o u ld p ro b a b ly p ro d u c e a n a c q u itta l,” M cC ul l ough A pp. , V ol . 1 at129, i texpr es s l yfound, bas ed on the r eas ons out l i ned above , thatthe new evi dence w as notcr edi bl e and “ thatno . . . cons pi r acyexi s t ed i n thi s cas e. ” I d. at133. A ft er exam i ning t he record on app eal , w e con cl ud e t he d i stri ctcou rtdid not abuse i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng M cC ul l ough’ s m ot i on. N ot abl y , M cC ul l ough does notatt empt t o chal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs ori t s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons . I ns t ead, h e e ff ec ti v elyarg u es, w ith o u t anycit ati o n to su p p o rt ing au tho ri ty , that the d istri ct co u rt w as r equi r ed t o acc epthi s pr offe r ed evi dence as true, or dera new tr i al , and al l ow a new j uryt o det erm i ne w hetherthe pr offe r ed evi dence w as cr edi bl e. N ei therthe ca s e l aw fr om thi s ci r cui t , norforthatm att erthe ca s e l aw fr om anyotherci r cui t , s uppor t s s uch a pos i t i on. T o t he contr ary , ourfi ve- pr onged t es t , w hi ch w e out l i ned above , cl ear l yi m pl i es that the d i stri ctcou rti s t o serve as a gat ekeep er t o a n ew tri al , decidi ng i n the fi rs t i ns t ance w hetherthe def endant ’ s pr offe r ed “ne w evi dence ” i s cr edi bl e. See al s o U ni t ed S tate s v . G o n z a lez , 9 3 3 F .2 d 4 1 7 , 4 4 7 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (h o ld in g th a t, i n o rd e r to g ra n t a new tr i al on t he gr ounds thata mat er i al w i tnes s l i ed attr i al , a di s tr i ctcourtm us tbe s at i s fi ed thatthe w i tnes s ’ s t es t i m onyw as fal s e) . M or eover , the pos i t i on as s ert ed by M cC ul l ough i s pat ent l yabs ur d, s i nce i tw oul d al l ow a def endantt o aut om at i cal l yobt ai n a n e w trial, a n d th e re b yu n d e rm in e th e tim e a n d re so u rc e s d e v o ted to th e in iti a l trial, sim p ly b ym a n u f

a c tu rin g so m e typ e o f

“ n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e ,” n o m a tter h o w in c re d ib le s u c h n e w e v id e n c e m ig h t b e .-28- D en ial of m o ti o n for jud g m en t of ac q u it tal - C o u n ts 3-5 M cC u ll o u g h co n tend s the ev iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al w as in su ff ici en t t o su p p o rt h is c o n v ictio n s o n C o u n ts 3 th ro u g h 5 , an d th u s th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al on thos e count s . A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, “[s ] uffi ci encyof the ev i den ce i s a l egal i ssue w e revi ew de n ov o. ” G reen, 43 5 F . 3d at12 72 ; see al so U ni t ed St at es v. A pper s on, 441 F. 3d 1162, 1209 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( not i ng thata di s tr i ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f a d ef

en d an t’ s m o ti o n fo r j u d g m en t of ac q u ittal is r ev iew ed d e n o v o ). In re v ie w in g th e s u f

f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e , w e “ a s k o n ly w h e th e r t a k in g th e e v id e n c e . . . t og et her w i th the r easona ble i nferences t o b e draw n ther efrom – in the li gh tm ost favor abl e t o the governm ent , a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd the def endantgui l tybey ond a rea so n ab le do u b t. ” G ree n , 4 3 5 F . 3 d at 12 7 2 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 1) C ount s 3 and 4 - pos s es s i on w i th i nt ent t o dis tr i but e coc ai ne and m ar i j uana C ount3 char ged M cC ul l ough w i th pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e fi ve hundr ed gr ams orm or e of a m i xtur e and s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amountof c o c a in e , in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ). C o u n t 4 c h a rg e d M c C u llo u g h w ith pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e a de t ect abl e amountof m ar i j uana, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . I n or dert o convi ctM cC ul l ough of thes e cha r ges , the governm enthad t o pr ove thathe: “( 1) pos s es s ed the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance [s ] ; ( 2) knew he pos s es s ed the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance [s ] ; and ( 3) i nt ended t o di s tr i but e ordi s pens e the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance [s ] . ” U ni t ed St at es v. B ow en, 437 F. 3d 1009, 1014 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal qu otat i on m arks om i t t ed). In chal l eng i ng the suf fi ci encyof the evidence sup po rt i ng t hese-29-

co n v ict ion s, M cC u ll o u g h fo cu ses s o lel yo n the f ir st of thes e e lem en ts, i. e., p o sses sion . In part i cul ar , M cC ul l ough ar gues that“no evi dence w as pr es ent ed that[he] w as a co- ow ner o f th e re s id e n c e ” w h e re th e n a rc o tic s w e re f o u n d . M c C u llo u g h B r. a t 3 8 . “ In f a c t,” M cC ul l ough ar gues , the evi dence i ndi cat ed thathe “ow n[ed] hi s ow n r es i dence at3315 W ebs t er ” i n K ans as C i ty , K ans as . I d. Fur ther , M cC ul l ough ar gues , “[n] o t es t i m onyw as offe r ed that[he] knew drugs w er e l ocat ed i n the home” at3244 C l evel and. I d. at39. Poss es s i on of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance can be ei theractual orcons truct i ve. See U ni t ed St at es v. M cK i s s i ck, 204 F. 3d 1282, 1291 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . C ons truct i ve pos s es s i on exi s t s w her e “a per s on know i ngl yhas ow ner s hi p, dom i ni on[, ] orcontr ol over the nar cot i cs and the pr emi s es w her e the nar cot i cs ar e found. ” U ni t ed St at es v. R eec e, 86 F .3 d 9 9 4 , 9 9 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). W e h a v e a ltern a tiv e ly d e f in e d c o n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n o f a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e a s “ a n a p p re c iab le a b ili tyto g u ide th e d esti n yo f th e d rug . ” U n it ed S tat es v . C arter, 1 3 0 F . 3 d 1 4 3 2 , 1 4 4 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). A p p ly in g th e se p rin c ip les h e re , w e c o n c lu d e , af ter re v iew in g th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l, thatthe governm entpr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h thatM cC ul l ough had cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of the coc ai ne and mar i j uana f ound i n the r es i dence at3244 C l eveland. A l tho ug h ther e w as no ev i den ce t hat M cC ull ou gh had an o w nershi p int eres t i n the r es i dence , the governm ent ’ s evi dence es t abl i s hed thatM cC ul l ough had a l ongt erm , i nt i m at e r el at i ons hi p w i th M os l ey , the ow nerof the r es i dence , and s t ay ed atthe r es i dence on a r egul arbas i s . Forexampl e, D et ect i ve St ephen O w en, w ho as s i s t ed i n t heW hen M os l eyt es t i fi ed i n herow n defe ns e attr i al , s he deni ed thatM cC ul l ough 4 “l i ved” a tthe r es i dence , butadmi t t ed he s pentthe ni ghtther e tw o t o thr ee t i m es a w eek. -30- s ear ch of the r es i dence , t es t i fi ed attr i al thatw hen he a rr i ved atthe r es i dence on the eveni ng of J une 9, 2003, M os l eyappr oache d hi m and, i n the cour s e of the ens ui ng conver s at i on, expl ai ned thats he l i ved atthe r es i dence w i th herchi l dr en and M cC ul l ough, w ho s he i dent i fi ed as herboy fr i end. D et ect i ve J ames Bauer , w ho al s o as s i s t ed i n the s ear ch, pr ovi ded s i m i l art es t i m ony . T he governm ent ’ s evi dence al s o es t abl i s hed that 4 per s onal i t ems and doc um ent s bel ongi ng t o M cC ul l ough w er e found dur i ng the s ear ch of the r es i dence . Forexampl e, a cl os etful l of m en’ s cl othi ng and s hoes w as found i n the m aster b ed roo m o f th e h o u se (the o ther m aster b ed roo m clos et co n tai n ed w o m en ’s cl othi ng) . Fur ther , i dent i fi cat i on car ds bel ongi ng t o M cC ul l ough w er e found on t op of the fi r epl ace i n t he l i vi ng r oom of the mai n fl oor , and on a c om put ert abl e i n the mast er bedr oom . A s forM cC ul l ough’ s connec t i on t o the nar cot i cs found i n the hous e, the governm ent ’ s evi dence es t abl i s hed thatM cC ul l ough’ s fi ngerpr i nt s w er e found on a b ag g ie co n tai n ing co ca ine re sidu e se ized fro m the re side n ce ’s m ain f loo r kit ch en . In addi t i on, and perhaps m os tdamagi ng t o M cC ul l ough, w as the t es t i m onyfr om the g o v e rn m e n t’s w itn e ss e s in d ica tin g th a t th e yh a d f re q u e n tlyp u rc h a se d n a rc o tics d ire c tly fr om M cC ul l ough atthe r es i dence . T ogether , thi s evi dence , though ci r cumst ant i al , w as m or e than s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h M cC ul l ough’ s cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of the coc ai ne and m ar i j uana s ei zed dur i ng the s ear ch of the r es i dence .T h e d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed that “the ev iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al d[ id] n o t sup p o rt 5 the j ury ’ s fi ndi ng thatM r . M cC ul l ough ‘ pos s es s ed’ the R uger. 45 cal i berhandgun” beca us e “the governm entha[d] nots how n a s uffi ci entnexus betw een M r . M cC ul l ough and thi s w eapon. ” M cC ul l ough A pp. , V ol . 1 at81. I n r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on, the d istri ct co u rtn o ted th at, “[ u ]nli k e the o ther w ea p o n s tha t w ere fo u n d in M r. M cC ul l ough’ s ow n cl os et , the handgun w as found i n the ki t chen – a m ul t i purpos e r oom thatw as us ed bya var i etyof i ndi vi dual s , notj us tM r . M cC ul l ough. ” I d. -31- b ) Co u n t5 - p o s s e s s i o n o f f i r e a r m i n f

u r th e r a n c e o

f dr u gtr a f f i c k i n gc r i me C o u n t 5 ch arg ed M cC u ll o u g h w ith p o sses sion o f f o u r firearm s (i . e., a M o ssb erg 2 0 -g a u g e sh o tg u n , a S m ith a n d W e ss o n .3 8 c a lib e r h a n d g u n , a D P M S se m iau to m a tic as s aul tr i fl e, and a Ruger. 45 cal i berhandgun) i n fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) and ( c) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) . T he j uryfound M cC ul l ough gui l tyof pos s es s i ng thr ee of thes e fourfi r earm s ( i . e. , al l butthe Sm i th and W e ss o n .3 8 c a lib e r h a n d g u n ). M c C u llo u g h A p p ., V o l. 1 a t 5 7 . T h e d istric t co u rt, h o w e v e r, g ra n ted in p a rt M c C u llo u g h ’s p o st-tria l m o tio n f o r ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l, concl udi ng the evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe j ury ’ s fi ndi ng thatM cC ul l ough pos s es s ed a Ruger. 45 cal i berhandgun i n fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. I d. at

5 73. T he di s tr i ctcourtl efti nt actthe r emai ni ng fi ndi ngs of the j uryr egar di ng C ount5. In h is a p p e a l, M c C u llo u g h a ttac k s th e se re m a in in g f in d in g s s u p p o rtin g h is convi ct i on on C ount5, ar gui ng thatthe governm entfai l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h thathi s pos s es s i on of the s hot gun and as s aul tr i fl e w as “i n fur ther ance of” a drug tr aff

i cki ng offe ns e. I n or dert o es t abl i s h the “i n fur ther ance of” e l ementof a § 924( c) ( 1) char ge, the governm entm us t“s how thatthe w eapon ‘ fur ther ed, pr om ot ed or advanc ed’ a drug tr aff

i cki ng cr i m e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. R obi ns on, 435 F. 3d 1244, 1251O ne of the governm ent ’ s w i tnes s es , D om i ni c H ay es , t es t i fi ed that , dur i ng a drug 6 tra n sa c tio n , M c C u llo u g h lef t th e m a in f

lo o r k itch e n a n d w a lk e d to th e b a c k o f th e m a in fl oor( i . e. , t ow ar ds the hal l w ayand mast erbedr oom ) t o obt ai n the drugs t o compl et e the tr ans act i on. B as ed upon thi s t es t i m ony , and i n combi nat i on w i th the evi dence s ei zed fr om the hous e, the j urycoul d r eas onabl yhave de t erm i ned thatM cC ul l ough us ed the hall w aycl osetand the m ast er bedroom as pri m aryst orage areas for hi s narcot i cs. -32- (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . Ii la n d , 2 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 7 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) . T h is sho w ing ca n b e sa ti sfied b yev iden ce that the d ef en d an t i n tention all yk ep t a firearm a v a ilab le f

o r u se if n e e d e d d u rin g a d ru g tra n sa c tio n . Id . “S e v e ra l f a c to rs m a yf

a c ili tate pr oof . . . of the def

endant ’ s i nt ent . ” I d. T hes e fa ct or s i ncl ude: “( 1) the type of drug act i vi tybei ng conduct ed, ( 2) the ac ces s i bi l i tyof the fi r earm , ( 3) the type of f i r earm , ( 4) the l egal s t atus of the fi r earm , ( 5) w hetherthe fi r earm i s l oaded, ( 6) the pr oxi m i tyof the fi r earm t o drugs ordrug pr ofi t s , and ( 7) the t i m e and c i r cumst ance s underw hi ch the fi r earm i s found. ” I d. A ft err evi ew i ng the tr i al tr ans cr i pt , w e conc l ude the governm ent ’ s evi dence w as m o re th a n su f

f icie n t to a llo w th e ju ryto re a so n a b lyf in d th a t M c C u llo u g h in ten tio n a lly k e p tth e s h o t g u n a n d a s s a u l tr i f l e a v a i l a b l e f

o ru s e d u r i n g d ru g tr a n s a c t i o n s i f n e e d e d . To b e g in w ith , b o th w e a p o n s w e re e a silya c c e ss ib le, b o th h a v in g b e e n f o u n d in p lain v iew in the mast erbedr oom cl os etthatcont ai ned men’ s cl othi ng and footw ear , and j us tdow n the hal l w ayfr om the mai n fl oorki t chen w her e the bul k of the drug tr ans act i ons occurr ed. 6 A ccor di ng t o t he governm ent ’ s evi dence , the s hot gun, w hi ch had a pi s t ol gr i p, w as notof th e typ e th a t co u ld re a so n a b lyb e u se d f o r h u n tin g o r sp o rtin g p u rp o se s. R a th e r, it s pr i m aryus e w as forhom e pr ot ect i on. A l though the governm ent ’ s evi dence i ndi cat ed that-33-

the assaultri fl e cou l d, i n theory , hav e been used f or hun t i ng , i t s pri m aryhu nti ng use w o u ld h a v e b e e n f

o r la rg e g a m e , an d th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th a t u se in th is c a se . N e ith e r w e a p o n w a s re g iste re d in M c C u llo u g h ’s n a m e (o r M o sle y ’s n a m e ). B o th w eapons w er e ful l yl oaded a nd thus avai l abl e foreas yus e i f nee ded. Fi nal l y , hundr eds of thous ands of dol l ar s w or th of nar cot i cs w er e found i n the hous e ( i ncl udi ng m ar i j uana that w as found i n t he s ame cl os etw her e the tw o fi r earm s w er e s t or ed, and l ar ge br i cks of coca i ne thatw er e s t or ed i n a hal l w aycl os etj us tout s i de the mast erbedr oom ) , and the governm ent ’ s evi dence es t abl i s hed thatM cC ul l ough r out i nel ys ol d l ar ge quant i t i es of n arc o ti cs f

rom the h o u se. C o n side ri n g all o f th ese fa cts t o g ethe r, the e v iden ce w as m o re th a n su f f icie n t to e sta b lish th e “ in f u rth e ra n c e o f

” e lem e n t. R eas onabl enes s of

s ent ence A tthe t i m e of s ent enci ng, M cC ul l ough m ade “ a gene r al obj ect i on . . . t o the extr eme di s par i tythati s aff or ded cr ack c ocai ne pur s uantt o the [Sent enci ng] gui del i nes . ” M cC ul l ough A pp. , V ol . 3 at545. M or e s peci fi cal l y , M cC ul l ough ar gued thatther e w as no “l egi t i m at e bas i s ” forthe har s hertr eatm enti m pos ed underthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes f o r c ri m e s in v o lv in g c ra c k c o c a in e v e rs u s th o s e in v o lv in g p o w d e r c o c a in e . Id . A c c o rd in g ly , M c C u llo u g h a sk e d th e d istric t co u rt “ to sh o w m e rc yo n [ h im ]” w h e n it announce d i t s s ent ence . I d. at546. T he di s tr i ctcourtoverrul ed M cC ul l ough’ s obj ect i on and refused t o d epartfrom the ad vis orygu i deli ne rang e on this basi s, st at i ng as fol l ow s: T urn [s i c] m yatt ent i on t o t he obj ect i on conce rni ng the cr ack/pow der di s par i ty . T hati s of l es s cons equenc e her e, of cour s e, than i ti s i n m any c a s e s b e c a u s e th e g r e a tb u l k o f th e d ru g s h e r e we r e i n th e p o wd e rf o r m; how ever , I do overrul e the obj ect i on. T hi s part i cul ardi s par i tyhas been-34-

s tudi ed i n gr eatdepth bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. I t ’ s been s tudi ed by C ongr es s . T her e ar e di ffe r i ng poi nt s of vi ew abouti t , butthe w ei ghtof decis i on on this m at t er has been thatthat di spari tyi s w arr anted no tbecau se it’s d isc rim in a to ryto w a rd s th o se w h o u se th e se d ru g s – o r th o se w h o se ll the drugs , forthatm att er– butr ather , i n m yvi ew , beca us e of the ea s e of m ark etab il ityan d ea se o f u se o f c rac k co ca ine, m ak ing ita m u ch m o re p o ten t ec o n o m ic f

o rc e a n d th e re f

o re c re a tin g e v e n m o re o f a d if f icu ltyin the drug w or l d. I thi nk ther e’ s a r eas onabl e bas i s forthe di s par i ty , and I s ee n o rea so n to co n clud e tha t i t’ s b ase d o n an yim p rop er f ac tor. I d. at557- 58. O n appea l , M cC ul l ough now cont ends thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed bythe di s tr i ct co u rtw as u n rea so n ab le un d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) an d B o o k er b ec au se th e d istri ct co u rt fai l ed t o pr oper l yt ake i nt o acc ount“the s ubs t ant i al di ffe r ence s i n s ent enci ng betw een pow dercoca i ne and c r ack c ocai ne and the fa ctthats t at i s t i cal l ys peaki ng, A fr i can A m er i cans ar e puni s hed more s ever el ythan W hi t es bas ed on the di s t i nct i on betw een c o c a in e a n d c o c a in e b a s e .” M c C u llo u g h B r. a t 4 0 . “U nderB ooker , w e ar e r equi r ed t o r evi ew di s tr i ctcourts ent enci ng deci s i ons for ‘r e a s o n a b le n e s s .’” U n ite d S ta te s v . C a g e , 4 5 1 F .3 d 5 8 5 , 5 9 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). “Sent enci ng deci s i ons m us tbe r ever s ed w hen a s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e cons i der i ng t he fac t or s enumer at ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” I d. “R eas onabl enes s has both pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve component s . ” I d. ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1054- 55 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 )). B ec au se th e se n tenc e im p o sed b ythe d istri ct co u rtin M cC u ll o u g h ’s cas e i s w i thi n t he advi s orygui del i ne r ange, and bec aus e M cC ul l ough does notchal l enge the d istri ct co u rt ’s ca lculati o n o f th at ran g e, th e se n tenc e im p o sed b ythe d istri ct co u rt m us tbe cons i der ed r eas onabl e fr om a pr ocedur al per s pect i ve and, i n turn, i s cons i der ed-35-

pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e fr om a s ubs t ant i ve per s pect i ve. See K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d at1054- 55. T hus , the bur den i s on M cC ul l ough t o r ebutthatpr es um pt i on of s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s . See i d. at1055 ( not i ng “[t ] he def endantm ayr ebutthi s pr es um pt i on by d em o n str ati n g that the s en tenc e is u n rea so n ab le i n li g h t of the o ther se n tenc ing fa ctors lai d o u t i n § 3 5 5 3 (a)”). M c C u llo u g h , h o w e v e r, ca n n o t sa tisf yth is b u rd e n . P rio r to B o o k e r, w e , li k e a ll otherci r cui t s , cons i s t ent l yr ej ect ed cha l l enges t o the di s par i tyi n the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes betw een c r ack c ocai ne and pow dercoca i ne. E . g. , U ni t ed St at es v. M apl es , 95 F. 3d 35, 37- 38 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( not i ng thatC ongr es s had vot ed t o pr es erve the hi gher s ent ence s forcr ack- r el at ed cr i m es , and that , acc or di ngl y , “the expa ns i ve i s s ue of appr opr i at e s ent enci ng l evel s forcr ack of fens es [w a] s notthe s or tof di s cr et e, i ndi vi dual an d ca se-sp ec ifi c m it igating circu m stan ce [] justi fy ing d o w n w ard d ep arture” ). A lth o u g h w e h av e n o t had an o p p o rtu n ityto ad d ress the d ispa ri tyissue sinc e B o o k er, s ever al otherci r cui t s have a nd al l have a gr eed thata s ent ence i s notr ender ed u n rea so n ab le m ere lyb ec au se o f a d istri ct co u rt ’s refu sal t o d ev iat e f rom the a d v isory g u id e lin e ra n g e o n th e b a s is o f th e c ra c k c o c a in e /p o w d e r c o c a in e d is p a ri ty. S e e , e .g ., U ni t ed St at es v. G i ps on, 425 F. 3d 335, 337 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( concl udi ng i tw as noterr or fo r distr ictco u rtto ref

u se to take the d ispa ri tyinto a cc o u n t i n sen tenc ing d ef en d an t) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C aw thorn, 429 F. 3d 793, 803 ( 8th C i r . 2006) ( “hol d[i ng] s ent enci ng w ith in th e G u id e lin e s b a se d o n th e c ra c k -p o w d e r d isp a rityis n o t in h e re n tly u n rea so n ab le”). F u rth er, atleast tw o circu it s h av e h eld th at i t i s erro r fo r a d istri ct co u rt-36-

t o i mp o s e a s e n t e n c e o u t s i d e th e a d v i s o ryg u i d e l i n e r a n g e b a s e d u p o n i t s o wn di s agr eementw i th t he cr ack c ocai ne/pow dercoca i ne di s par i ty . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pho, 433 F. 3d 53, 63 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( concl udi ng that“di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cat egor i cal r ej ect i on of the 100: 1 r at i o . . . runs headl ong i nt o the w i l l of C ongr es s as embodi ed i n the Sent enci ng R ef o rm A ct, ” a n d “thre aten s to u n d erm ine th [e ] de sir ed u n ifo rm ity ” in f ed era l sen tenc es); U n it ed S tat es v . E u ra, 44 0 F . 3 d 6 2 5 , 6 3 3 (4th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (r ev ersing sen tenc e w h ere di s tr i ctcourt , att i m e of pos t - B ookers ent enci ng, s ubs t i tut ed i t s ow n cr ack coca i ne/pow dercoca i ne r at i o forthe 100: 1 r at i o chos en byC ongr es s ) ( “[G ] i vi ng a se n ten c in g c o u rt th e a u th o rityto se n ten c e a d e f e n d a n t b a se d o n its v iew o f a n a p p ro p ria te r at i o betw een c r ack c ocai ne and pow dercoca i ne w oul d i nevi t abl yr es ul ti n an unw arr ant ed di s par i tybetw een s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed def endant s i n di r ectcontr adi ct i on t o the s p e c i f i c ma n d a t e o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) . ” ) . I n l i g h to f th i s a u th o r i ty , wi th wh i c h we agr ee, w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourti n thi s cas e di d noterri n r efus i ng t o i m pos e a l ow ers ent ence bas ed on the di s par i tyi n the G ui del i nes ’ tr eatm entof cr ack a nd pow der coca i ne. T h e j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED .