## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 2227 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D EV ON G ROVES, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 06 C R 69

—Rob ert L. Miller, Jr. , Chief Judge.
A RGUED J AN UA RY 25, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 17, 2009

Befo re F LA UM, R OV NER, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . A m an fi red m u ltipl e s hots i nto an o ccupie d South Bend , Indi ana hom e, and ey ew i tness es tol d pol i ce that Devo n Grove s was th e sh oo ter
. A fter furth er invest igation an d con su ltation w ith a prose cu tor, th e l ead i nvest i gat ori ssued a “cr i m e i nfo rm ati on bul l etin ” f o r G r ov es ind ica tin g h e s h ou ld be p ick ed u p if f o und; the pr o se cut o r ha d g i ve n the g o - ah ea d f o r the “pi c k up , ” a nd the o ffi c e r u nd e r s t o o d tha tthe p r o s e cutor2 N o. 07

- 2227

w oul d be s eek i ng an ar re st w ar ra nt. A bout a m onth a fter the s hoot i ng, an a nonym ous t i pstercal l ed 911 and re

port ed that sh e had j ust s een Gro ves and he w as “pro babl y” car ry i ng a gun. T he cal l erdescr ibed Grove s’ s cl othi ng, location, an d the ca r he w as in, an d pa trol un its w ere dispat ched to the a re a to l oo k f orhi m . The di spatcher pas se d al ong the info rm ati on fro m the ti p and al so advi sed r espondi ng o ffi cers that Gro ves w as w anted o n a warr ant. C or p or al C h ris t o p h e r Slag er so on sa w G ro ve s rid in g in a ca r tha t m at ch ed the de sc r i pti o n pr o vi ded bythe ti pst er . S l ag eri ni ti at ed a tr affi c st o p, o r der ed G r o ve s an d th e o th ero cc upa nt s o uto fthe c ar, an d s aw a ha ndg un und erthe sea t where Grove s had bee n si tti ng. Grov es w as charg ed und er 18 U
. S. C. § 922( g) ( 1) w i th bei n g a fel on i n posse ssi on o fa fi re ar m and am m unit i on. H e m ove d to supp re ss the gun. A s i t turned out , t h e dispat cher had bee n mi st ak enabo utthe war r an t; i n f ac t, the r e was no w ar r a ntf o r Gr o v e s ’ s a r r e s t, o nl y the “ c r i me i nf o r mat i on bul l eti n. ” The di str i ct c ourt d en i ed the supp re ssi on m oti on, and a j ury convi cted Gro ves on bo th co unts. On a pp e a l, Gr o v e s r e ne ws h i s c ha l l e ng e t o the a dm i s s i o n o fth e g u n . W e r ej e c th i s a r g u m e n t s a n d a ffi r m. A l though a n anonym ous t i p i s g ener al l y i nsuffi ci ent t o su p p or t a n inv es tig at ive st op , Fl or i da v . J
. L. , 529 U
. S. 26 6 ( 2000 ) , there w as m or e s up port i ng thi s s top than j ust an anon ym ou s tip. U nd er U nited Sta te s v. Hensley, 46 9 U
. S. 22 1 ( 1985 ) , pol i ce m ay conduct an inve sti gat i ve sto p ofa suspect base d on a “w anted fl yer ” o r “bul l eti n” li ke the one a t i ssue i n thi s ca se. The bul l etin i ssued f orGrov esN o. 07

- 2227 3

was s uppo r te d b y a m pl e r easonabl e su spi ci o n tha t he w as i nvolve d i n the ear l i ersho oting, and thi s i n turn w as su f fi ci en t to j us ti fy the s to p. A co m pl i ca ti o n i s th atthe di spa tc he r t o l d r es po ndi ngo ffice r s th er e was a war r an t for G ro ve s’s arr es t, n ot j u st a p ick u p “b u llet in .” B u t t h is m ist ak e d id n ot u n d er m in e t h e p re ex ist in g re a s o n ab le su spi ci o n f o r the s to p. M oreover, t o the e xt en t th atthe e r r o r h a d any e f f e c to n the v a l i di t y o fthe s t o p, s up pre s s i o n wa s no t r e qu i r e d. Th e S up r e me Co ur t ha s j ust hel d that a negl i gent m i sta ke by pol i ce per sonnelr eg a r d i n gth e e x i s t e n c e o fa w a r r a n td o e s n o tr e q u i r e a ppli cati on o fthe excl usi onar y r ule

. Herring v. U nite d S ta tes , 129 S. C t. 695 (2009 ).

I . B a c kg r o und I n the m i dd l e o fthe ni ght on A p ril 30 , 20 06, r esi dents ofa ho m e o n S o uth Be ndi x S tr ee t i n S o uth Be nd w ere aw ak en ed by a m an try in g t o b re ak th e loc k on th eir f ro nt door

. They r eco gni zed the m an as Devon Gro ves an d c al l ed o utt o hi m . Gro ve s r anfr o m the i r fr o ntpo r ch, an d s ec o nds lat er, a s pr ayo fg uns ho ts t o r e th r o ugh the h om e fro m th e d ire c tio n in w h i c h G ro ve s h ad ru n, ne ar ly hi tti ng the hom e’ s o ccupants. Cor po r alDa vi d J o hns o n, a g an gi nv es ti g at o r i n the So uth Bend Pol i ce Depar tm en t, w as ass i gned to the case . Aft eri nt er vi ewi ngthe e y ewi tn es se s an d c o nduc ting furtheri nvest i gat i on, J ohnso n and o thero ffi cer s m et wi t h a d e p u t y c o u n t y p r o s e c u t o r, wh o i n d i c a t ed he woul d s ee ka n a r r es t w ar r an t f o r Gr o ve s. I n the mean ti m e, however, the pros ecuto r author i zed J ohnson to4 N o. 07

- 2227 i s s ue a “ pi c k up ” o r de r f o r Gr ov e s . T e c hn i c a l l y c a l l e d a “crim e inform ation bu ll etin,” these com m un icat ions are diss em i nated throu gh out the S outh Bend Pol i ce Depar tm ent a nd ar e a vai l abl e t o al l pol i ce per sonnelas wellas outsi de law

- enf or cem ent a genci es. The bul l eti n sum m ari zed Grov es’ s i nvol vem ent in the shoo ti ng and pro vi ded hi s i den ti fy i ngi nf o r m at i o n s o o ffi ce r s co ul d b e o n the l o o k o utf o r hi m . The b ul le tin a l so i ndi ca te d tha t th e pr o se cut o r ha d g i ve n “ ve rba l a utho r i zati o n” f o r the pi c k up . A bout a m onth l ate r, o n J une 1, 20 06, S outh B end pol i ce received an an o n y m ou s 911 call that p rovide d i nform at i o n s uffi ci en t to i m m edi at el y l o ca te Groves. The ca l l eri ndi ca te d tha t “r i g htno w” Gr o ve s was s ta ndi ng outsi de a par ti cul arse t of ad dress es on El m erS tr eet wea r i nga whi te s hi r t, b l ac ks ho rts, a nd a b l ac kha t, a nd w as next to a bl ack carwith s peci al ty ri m s, and “pro babl y” h ad “a gu n on h im .” T h is in for m a t i o n w as im m ed iat ely di spa tc he d to pat r o l uni ts o ve r the po l i ce r adi o . The dispat ch i nfo rm ed re sponding offi cer s that th er e was a w arrantf orGrov es’ s a rr est
. S i m i l ari nfo rm ati on was al so tr ansm i tte d to offi cer s’ i n-s quad co m pu ter s. Cor pora l Sl age r w as w i thi n a few bl ock s o fGrov es’ s r epor ted l o ca ti o n a nd was fi r st to s po t th e ve hi cl e m at ch i ngthe ti p’s descri pti on; he s aw a m an m atchi ng G ro ve s’s descr i pti on s i tti ng i n the backse at. Sl age r sto pp ed the car . Grov es i n itial l y f ai l ed to r es po nd t o se ve r alc o m m an ds to s ho w hi s ha nds , b ut S l ag ere ve nt ua l l y r emoved G r o ve s f r o m the c ara nd se cur ed hi m in hi s cr ui se r wi th o utfur th eri nc i den t. TheN o. 07

- 2227 5 dr i ve r a nd a no th ero cc upa ntwer e al so o r der ed o uto fthe car . Onc e th ey w er e s ecure d, Sl age r re turned t o the c arto conduct a prot ecti ve sw eep. L oo ki ng i nsi de the open door s, S l age r saw a handgun parti al l y con c ea l ed und er the dr i ver ’ s s eatdi re ctl y i n f ro nt o fGrov es’ s pos i ti on w here he ha d been s i ttingi n the backse at. Grov es w as ar r es te d f o r po ss es si o n o fthe ha ndg un. Grove s was ev entual l y c harg ed w ith t w o § 9 22( g) ( 1) off enses : poss ess i on o fa fi re ar m by a f el on stem m i ng fro m hi s pos ses si on o f t h e gun on J une 1 a nd poss ess i on o f am m u n itio n by a felon from th e A p ril 30 sh oo tin g in c id e n t
. G r o v e s mo v e d t o su p p r e s s th e g u n . A ts o me po i nta fte r Gr o ve s’ s ar r es t, i t w as de te r m i ne d tha t th e d ispa tch er had been m istaken abou t the existen ce of a w ar ra nt; f orso m e unknown rea son, the pros ecu tor ne ver obt ai ned one. Grov es ar gu ed thatS l age r had nei ther pro b a b l e c a us e n o r r e a s o nab l e s us pi c i o n t o s t o p the car b ec au se th er e w as n o w ar ra n t a n d th e a n on ym ou s t ip was n’ t en o ug h b y i ts elf

. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e m oti on, co ncl ud i ng tha t the ano nym ous t i p provi ded en oug h i nf o r m at i o n t o s uppl y r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n a nd th at Slager had rel ied in good f aith on the d ispa t c h e r’s re prese ntati on about the warr ant. The c a s e wa s the n t r i e d t o a j ur y , wh i c h c o nv i cted Gr o ve s o n b o thc o unt s. He was s en te nc ed t o 2 40 months i n pr i so n ( 12 0 m o nths o n e ac h c o untt o r un c o ns ec uti vel y) , abo ve the ap pli cabl e s entenci ng g uidel i nes r ange of15 1 t o 188 m onths.6 N o. 07

- 2227 I I . Discussi on Grove s a pp eal s hi s co nvi cti on o n the fi re ar m co unt onl y, sp ec ifica lly c h alle n gin g t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d en ial of h is m o ti o n t o s uppr es s th e g un. He a l so c ha l l en g es hi s se ntence o n both counts, wh i ch at 2 40 m onths tot alwas consi derabl y hi gherthan the s entence r ecom m en ded by the guidel i nes. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ngs o f f act on t h e su pp re ssi on m oti on f orcl earer ro r and i ts l e g a l co n c lu sio n s d e n ov o. O rnela s v. U nited Sta tes , 5 17 U .S. 69 0, 69 9 (1 99 6); see als o U n ited S ta tes v. M cIn tire, 51 6 F
. 3d 57 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( di st i ng uishingb etwee n war r an t and no- w ar ra nt cas es)

. W e r evi ew the sente nce f orr easo n ab len es s. G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 128 S. Ct. 58 6, 74 7 (20 07 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wac howi ak, 496 F. 3d 744, 7 47 ( 7th C ir. 2007). Gr o ve s cl ai m s th atCo r po r alS l ag erl ac k ed th e r ea so nable s uspi ci o n n ec es sa r y f o r a l awful s to p; the r e i s no questi on that i fthe sto p w as l aw ful, the prot ecti ve sw eep of t h e c ar an d th e s eiz u re of th e g u n w er e a lso law fu l. M i ch igan v. Lo ng, 463 U .S. 10 3 2 , 1 04 9 (1 98 3); U nited Sta tes v. Wim bush , 3 3 7 F.3d 94 7, 95 0 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); U nited Sta tes v. Evans , 994 F.2d 31 7, 32 0-2 1 (7 th C ir. 19 93 ); U ni ted Sta tes v. Lo ng m ire, 761 F.2d 4 1 1 , 4 19 (7th C ir. 1985). G roves’s argu m en t rests on th e m istake a b o u t the existen ce of a war r an t an d the g en er alr ul e th ata no ny m o us ti ps, wi th o ut m or e, ar e usual l y t oo l acki ng in in d ici a o fr el i abi l i ty to pr o v i de r e a s o nab l e s us pi c i o n t o c o nd uc ta s t o p. J
. L. , 529 U
. S. at27 1. The dis tr i ct c ourthel d t h at the s top was l aw ful und er J
. L. bec ause i t pr ovi ded “a m ple pre dict i ve i nfo rm at i onN o. 07

- 2227 7 wi thwhi chOffi ce r S l ag erc o uld testthe a no ny m o us i nfo rm ant’ s knowle dge and cre dibi l i ty. ” Thi s was tr ue o n the quest i on o fGrov es’ s i de n tit y (the ca l l er ’ s i nfo rm ati on ab o utGr o ve s’ s l o ca ti o n, de sc r i pti o n, a nd c arwer e co nfi rm ed by the o f fi cerbef or e he i ni ti ate d the s top) but not necess ar i l y t rue on the questi on of G ro ves’ s cr i m i nal ac tiv ity
. J.L. i n v o l v e d a t i p s i mi l a r t o th e o n e b e f o r e u s : An an on ym ou s c alle r to ld p olic e t h at a yo u n g b lac k m ale in a p laid sh irtst a n d i n g ata p ar tic u lar bu s s to p w ou ld h av e a gu n . Id. at26 8. The S up re m e Cour t hel d that a n an on ym ou s t ip of th is s or t d id n ot ju st ify a st op , i d. at 274, bec ause a t i p m ust hav e “ ‘ suf fi ci ent ind i ci a o fr el i ab ility ’ ” t o c re at e re as on ab le s u sp icio n, i d. a t 27 0 ( quo ting A labam a v. White, 496 U .S. 32 5, 32 7 (1 99 0)) . Re liab ility is p re se n t, for e x am p le, w h en th e in for m an t s u p p lies su ffici ent pr edi cti ve i nfo rm ati on about the s usp ec t so that pol i ce c an te st an i nfo rm ant’ s know l edge a nd cr edibi l i ty. Id. at27 1-7 2; White, 4 96 U
. S

. a t 33 2. Butthe t i p i n J.L. had no ne o fthi s; it w as pur el y de sc r i pti ve i n n atur e, l ac k i ng an y b as i s f r o m whi cht o di sc ern ho w the i nf o r m an t knew that the suspectwas engag ed i n i l l ega l ac ti vi ty. Th e Co ur th e l d: A n accur ate descr i pti on o f a s u bj ect’ s r eadi l y o bser vab le lo c a t i o n an d ap p ea ra n c e is of co u rs e re liab le in th is lim ite d se n se : I t w ill he l p t h e p olic e c or re c tly i denti fy the per son w hom the ti psterm eans to accus e. S ucha t i p, ho wev er, do es no t sh o w tha t th e ti psterhas knowle dge o fco nceal ed cr i m i nal acti vi ty. The r e a s o nab l e s us pi c i o n he r e a t i s s ue r e qu i r e s that a8 N o. 07

- 2227 ti p be re l i abl e i n i ts ass er ti on of i l l ega l i ty, not j ust in i ts t en den cyt o i den ti fy a de te r m i na te pe r so n. J
. L. , 52 9 U.S

. at27 1. The sa m e is tr ue her e. A ny pass erby spott i ng Gro ves sta nd i ng next to the c arco uld have r ep or ted hi s l oca ti on ( an d o th err ea di l y o bs er vabl e det ai l s) t o the po li ce. But sta nd i ng besi de a car i s no t i l l ega l ; wh at the pol i ce ne eded to kn ow , a n d w h a t t h ey co u ld n ot kn ow ba se d on th is ti p, was ho w the ca l l er k ne w tha t Gr o ve s was carr y i ng a g un. W i thout m or e, the anonym ous t i p i n thi s ca se c ou ld n ot j u st ify th e s to p . D avi s v. Novy, 43 3 F
. 3d 926, 92 9 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 42 7 F
. 3d 1053 , 10 57 (7th C ir. 2005). B ut there w as m ore to j us tify reason able su sp ici o n h ere th an j u st t h e a n on ym ou s t ip th at G ro ve s w as p ro b ab ly ca r r y i nga g un. The S o uth Be nd p oli ce b ul l et i n s te m m i ng f r o m t h e A p ril 30 sh oo tin g w as su p p or te d by am p le re aso nabl e s uspici on a nd suppli ed a b asi s f orthe sto p un d er the rationa le of H ensley, 469 U .S. at 2 32 -33
. H e ns l ey is a v a r i a t i o n o nth e c o mmo n - k n o wl e d g e d o c t r i n e th a ta l l o ws an o fficer t o re l y o n an adequatel y s up port ed “wanted fl yer” to j usti fy a st op ofa suspect eve n i fthe offi cerdoes no th i mse l fha v e r e a s o nab l e su s pi c i o n t o co nd uc tthe s t o p. The theo ryi s that poli ce m ay com m unica te “w anted fl i er s” and othero rder s t o sto p a suspectto t h e d ep ar tm ent a t l ar g e, to offi ce r s i n the f i el d, a nd t o o th erl aw- en f o r ce m en t a g e nc i e s p r o v i de d the i s s ua nc e o fthe o r de r i s i t s e l fs up po r t e d b y r e a s o nab l e s us pi c i o n s uffi c i e n tt o j us t i fy the s t o p. Th e a na l y s i s a s k s whe the r the o ffi c e r i s s ui ng the fl yer o r bul l et i n h ad o bj ec ti ve l y r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n t o s to p theN o. 07

- 2227 9

su sp ec t. Id. ; U nited Sta tes v. Na fzger, 974 F
. 2d 906, 9 11 ( 7th C ir. 1992); U ni t e d S t at e s v. W heeler, 8 00 F. 2d 100, 10 3 ( 7th C i r . 1 98 6); Lo ng m ire, 7 6 1 F
. 2 d a t 4 1 6
. I f he di d, the n a s top c ar rie d ou t o n th e b as is of t h e flye r or bu llet in is law fu l. Grove s doe s no t r eal l y d i spute thatCor pora l J ohnson h ad rea so n ab le s u sp icio n w h en h e c r e a te d th e b u llet in afteri nvest igat i ng the A pri l 30 sho oting. I nd eed, J ohnson ha d pr o babl e ca us e to a r r es t Gr o ve s; e y ewitness es t o the shoo ti ng i denti fi ed hi m as the sh ooter, wh i ch pro vi ded p ro b ab le c au se to arr es t h im
. Se eLo pez v. City o f Chi cago , 464 F. 3d 711, 71 4 ( 7th C ir. 20 06) ( Lopez “was ar re ste d w i thout a w ar ra nt, al though with probabl e ca use

— an eye w i tness i denti fi ed hi m as the shoo ter
. ”)

. A pro bl em ar i ses bec au se Corpor alS l age r w as m i sta kenl y t ol d by th e di spa tc he r tha t th er e was a war r an t o utf o r Gr oves’s ar r es t, no t j us t a want ed bul l eti n. Sla g ert es ti fi ed th athe did notr ecal l i fhe ha d seen the b ull eti n abo ut Grov es w hen i t was i ssued a m onth bef or e; he thought, bas ed on t h e r a d i o d i s p a t c h a n d th e r e a d o u to n h i s i n- s qu a d c o mpu ter, thatther e was a w ar ra nt f orGrov es’ s a rr est
. The pol i ce d i spatcher ’ s m i sta ke i n thi s r ega rd does not i nv alid ate th e stop ; that error d id n oth ing to un d ermi ne the p r e e xi s t i ngr e a s o nab l e s us pi c i o n tha ts up port ed the i ssuance ofthe bul l eti n. The bul l eti n bear s a di s t r ib ut i o n l i s ttha ti nc l ud e s the r a di o r o o m, the s quad r o o m , the d etect i ve b ur ea u, a nd o th ers ubdi vi si o ns a nd per so nne l wi th i n the S o uth Be nd Po l i ce De par tment, a nd C orp oral John son testifi ed that once i ssu ed , bu ll etins are ro uti nel y t ra nsm i tte d to the di strib u ti on l i st. I t i s uncl ear whethe r the b ul l et i n was m ista k en l y e nt er ed i nt o the10 N o. 07

- 2227 departm ent’ s s yst em as a w ar ra nt o r w hetherthe disp atch ermis to o ki t f o r a war r an t when co m m uni ca ting w i th o f fi c e r s i n t he fi e l d a ft e r the 9 1 1 c a l l

. Bu te i the r wa y, th er e i s no e vi den ce tha t i t was anyt hingo th ertha n a m i sta ke. Eve n a ss um i ngthi s er r o r a ff ect ed th e va l i di tyo fthe st op , the g un n ee d no t ha ve b ee n s uppr es se d. The S upr eme Cou r t ha s r ec en tl y he l d th at a ne g l i g en t m istake by p oli ce p erson ne l abou t the existen ce of a w arran t d oes n o t r e qu ire ap p li cation of th e exc lusionary ru le. H e r r i ng, 12 9 S

. Ct. at 70 3. I n H e r r i ng, a dep ut y she riff i ni ti ate d a st op- and-ar re st ofthe defe nd ant ba sed o n i nfo rm ati on co m m un i cate d by the she ri ff’ s depart

m en t’ s war r an t cl er ktha t th er e was a n o ut st an di ngwarra nt in a ne i ghbor i ng co unty f orthe defe nd ant’ s a rr est
. T h is turned out to be wrong ; the w ar ra nt had actu ally be enwi th dr awn s o m e m o nths ea r l i er, butthe re ca l l o fthe w ar ra nt had not been enter ed i nto the c ounty’ s database

. The de f en dan t so ug ht su ppr es si o n o fthe dr ug s an d g un th atwer e f o und in the s ea r chi nc iden t to hi s ar r es t. The Su p re m e C ou rth eld th at s u p p re ss ion w as n ot req u ire d ; i n th is situ at ion , th e C ou rt sa id , th e d et er re n c e r a t i on ale ofthe excl usi onar y ru le was s o att enuated thatexcl usi on of th e evid en c e w a s u nj u st ified

. Id. at7 02

- 03
. Not i ng th e ab s e nc e o fa nye v i de nc e tha tthe c o un t y h a d b e en r e c k l e s s i n ma i n t a i n i n gi t s wa r r a n ts y s t e m o r th a tk n o wi ngl y f al se entr i es had been m ade, th e C ourtr eas oned that appli cati on o fthe excl usi onar y r ule w oul d produce n o re al d et er re n t e ffec t o n p olic e m isc on d u c t a n d w ou ld be to o co st l y to th e tr uth- se ek i ng an d l aw - en f o r ce m en tN o. 07

- 2227 11 ob j ec tiv e s o f th e c rim in al jus tic e s ys te m . Id. “In l i ght o f o ur r e pe a t e d ho l di ng s tha t the de t e r r e nt e ff e c t o fsup press i on m ust be su b sta nti aland outwei gh any har m to th e j usti ce s yst em , we concl ud e that when poli ce m i sta kes are the r esul t o fnegl i gence such a s that desc ribed he re, rather th an system ic erroror reckless d isregard ofco nsti tuti onalr equi re m ents, any m ar gi nal deter re nce does not ‘ pay i ts w ay. ’ ” Id. at 7 04 ( i nter nal ci tat i on o m i tted ). The p olic e m i sta ke at i ssue here i s s ubstanti al l y s i m i l ar to the o ne a t i ss ue i n H erring
. Ac c o r di n g l y , a l th o u g h we rej ect Gr o v e s ’ s c l a i m tha t the di s pa t c he r’ s e rr or i nval i dated the gr ou n d s f orthe sto p, ev en i fwe w er e t o ass um e the st op w as i nval i d, supp re ssi on w as not re qui r ed. The r e i s no th i ngi n the r ec o r d t o s ug g es t th atthe So uth Bend Pol i ce Depar tm ent r eckl ess l y di sr ega rded const i tuti onalr equi re m ents or thatany pol i ce per sonnel knowingl y f al si fi ed a warr ant r eco rd. The suppress i on mot i o n wa s p r o pe r l y de ni e d. Grove s a l so att acks hi s above

- gui del i nes s en te n ce as unreas onabl e. W e d i sag re e. T he di str i ct c ourtpai nstak

i ng l y c o ns i der ed bo ththe g ui del i ne s r an g e an d the s en tenci ng f acto rs thatproperl y i nfo rm the cour t’ s e xerci se ofpost
- B o o k er s e nt e nc i ngdi s cr e t i o n un de r 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 553( a)

. The co urt too k no te ofthe f act that al though Gr o ve s st o o d c o nv i ct ed o fg un- a nd a m m unitionpos s e s s i on o f f enses , he ha d dem onst ra ted a propensi ty to actual l y use fi r e a r ms

— fi r i ng m ul ti pl e sh o ts i nto an oc cupie d hom e i n the i nci dent u n d er l yi ng the am m unit i on co unt, a s wel l a s o th eri ns tanc es o fb r an di sh i nga nd12 N o. 07

- 2227 thre ats to sho ot that w er e r efl ecte d i n hi s cr i m i nal bac kg r o und. The c o ur t was a l so s tr o ng l y i nfl ue nc ed bythe f act that these co nvi cti ons w er e Grove s’ s thi rd and f ourth f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s i n 1 2 y e a r s , a n d th a t a l th o ug h h e w as onl y 2 9 y ear s old , he had accum ula ted a tot alo f 52 ar re sts , m any fi re ar m r el ate d . T he co urt concl ud ed th atthe se f ac to r s, a nd the abs en ce o fa ny i n mi ti g at i o n, j usti fi ed an ab ove - gui deli nes s entence o f24 0 m onths. Grove s has notper suaded us that thi s s entence i s unre as o n a b le. Se eWac howi ak, 496 F. 3d at 749 ( nongui del i nes se nt en ce wi l l be a ffi r m ed i fa dequa te l y r ea so ne d a nd obj ectively reason able). A FFI RMED .

3- 17- 09