2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-19-2010 

# U SA v . H e rib e r t o S ant i ago P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2716

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . H e ribe r t o S ant i ag o " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 947. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/947NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 2716 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. HE RI BE RT O S ANT I AGO, A p p e llan t. O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct co u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 5- 08- cr - 00353- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. E duar do C . R obr eno Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on M ay10, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and H I L L M A N *, D i s tr i ctJ udge ( O pi ni on fi l ed J ul y19, 2010)

O P IN I O N

*H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: A p p e llan t H e rib e rto S a n tiag o p led g u iltyto a f o u r-c o u n t in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g h im w ith (1) p o sses sion w ith inten t t o d istri b u te co ca ine, i n v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1); ( 2) pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm 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) ; and ( 3- 4) bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm and of a m m uni t i on, b o th in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). O n ap p ea l, h e a rgu es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt c o m m itt e d th re e e rro rs. F irst, h e c o n ten d s th a t th e c o 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 obt ai ned pur s uantt o an al l egedl ydefe ct i ve w arr ant . Second, he ur ges that the co urti m properl ycl assi fi ed h i s pri or Pen nsy l van i a con vict i on for r eckles s endange r m entas a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” underthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . A nd thi r d, he ar gues thatthe courterr ed byent er i ng s epar at e convi ct i ons forthe pos s es s i on both of a firearm an d o f a m m u n it ion . W e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d en y ing S an ti ag o ’s m ot i on t o s uppr es s and i t s j udgm entent er i ng s epar at e convi ct i ons forpos s es s i on of the fi r earm and amm uni t i on, butw e w i l l vaca t e hi s s ent ence and r emand t he ca s e forr es ent enci ng. I . Backg r ound O n N ovember1, 2007, the A l l ent ow n pol i ce obt ai ned a w arr antt o s ear ch S a n tiag o ’s h o m e a n d v e h icle f o r a c e llu lar tele p h o n e , b a se d o n tw o a f f id a v its o f

p ro b a b le c a u se su b m itt e d b yp o lice d e tec tiv e s. In th o se a f f id a v its, the d e tec tiv e s in d ica ted th a t a w itn e ss to a n A llen to w n h o m icid e h a d b e e n b e e n in c o n tac t w ith th a t tele p h o n e m u lti p le3

tim e s o n th e d a yo f

th e c ri m e , in c lu d in g a c a ll ju s t n in e m in u te s p ri o r t o th e h o m ic id e . T he w i tnes s admi t t ed thathe had be en atthe s cene of the cr i m e i n or dert o buyi l l egal drugs , buthe l i ed aboutw ho ow ned the ce l l ul art el ephone i n ques t i on. T he det ect i ves d e ter m in e d th a t th e c e llu lar tele p h o n e b e lo n g e d to S a n tiag o , an d th e yo b tain e d c e ll site l ocat i on r ecor ds thatr evea l ed thatthe ce l l ul art el ephone ha d been i n the appr oxi m at e ar ea o f th e h o m ic id e a ro u n d th e tim e o f th e c ri m e . T he pol i ce e xecut ed the w arr anton N ovember2. T heydet ai ned Sant i ago out s i de hi s hom e w hi l e he w as gett i ng i nt o hi s carand found a . 40 cal i bers emi aut om at i c handgun on hi s per s on. T he pol i ce then s ear ched hi s hous e and, bas ed on thei rpl ai n vi ew obs ervat i ons of drug tr aff i cki ng evi dence , obt ai ned a w arr antt o s ear ch the r es i dence for d ru g s a n d a m m u n itio n . T h a t s e a rc h re v e a le d a f u ll b o x o f

3 9 m m a m m u n itio n . Sant i ago w as char ged i n a four - counti ndi ctm ent , as des cr i bed above . H e moved t o s uppr es s the evi dence s ei zed dur i ng the exe cut i on of the w arr ant , al l egi ng thatthe i ni t i al w arr antfai l ed t o es t abl i s h pr obabl e ca us e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed thatm ot i on, a n d S a n tiag o su b se q u e n tlyp led g u iltyto a ll ch a rg e s, c o n d iti o n e d o n h is b e in g a b le to ap p ea l th e su p p ression d en ial af ter his co n v ict ion . A t sen tenc ing , the D istri ct C o u rt c a lcu late d S a n tiag o ’s b a se o f f e n se lev e l f

o r p o ss e ss io n o f

th e f ire a rm a n d a m m u n iti o n to b e 2 0 u n d er § 2 K 2 . 1 (a)(4)(A ) of the S en tenc ing G u idelines , d eterm ining that S an ti ag o ’s pr i orconvi ct i on forr eckl es s endange r m entof anotherper s on qual i fi ed as a “c r i m e ofT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 4 vi ol ence . ” The cour ts ent ence d Sant i ago t o a t ot al of 120 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , and Sant i ago appe al ed. 1 II. D i s cus s i on A . M ot i on to Su p p ress S anti ago fi rs targues that the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in den y i ng his m oti on t o sup press th e e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d p u r s u a n tt o th e i n i t i a l s e a r c h wa rr a n tf o rth e c e l l u l a rt e l e p h o n e . He cont ends that“the s ear ch w arr antw as devoi d of pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatthe ce l l ul ar t el ephone s oughtw as orcont ai ned evi dence r el at i ng t o the homi ci de bei ng i nves t i gat ed. ” T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the s uppr es s i on m ot i on bas ed on the fa ct s s etfor th i n t he aff i davi t . I n r evi ew i ng thi s deni al , w e “s i t [] l i ke a di s tr i ctcourtand must , l i ke the di s tr i ct court , gi ve gr eatdefe r ence t o t he magi s tr at e j udge’ s pr obabl e ca us e det erm i nat i on. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . H

o d g e , 246 F. 3d 301, 305 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . O urr ol e “i s nott o deci de pr obabl e ca us e de novo , b u t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r ‘th e m a g istra te h a d a su b sta n tial b a sis forconcl udi ng thatpr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed. ’ ” U nited S tates v. Stearn , 597 F. 3d 540, 554 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng I l l i nois v. G at es , 4 6 2 U .S . 2 1 3 , 2 3 8 (1 9 8 3 )) . W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe af fi davi t s “cont ai n ampl e i ndi ci a of pr obabl e ca us e thatD efe ndant ’ s cel l ul art el ephone w as evi dence of a c r i m e. ” The a f f id a v its c o n tain e d in f

o rm a tio n in d ica tin g th a t S a n tiag o o w n e d th e c e llu lar tele p h o n e in5

ques t i on, thathe had be en i n cont actw i th a w i tnes s i m m edi at el ybefor e the homi ci de, and thathe had be en i n t he vi ci ni tyof the homi ci de. W e, ther efor e, hol d thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rth ad a su b stan ti al ba sis t o co n clud e tha t th ere w as p rob ab le ca u se th at S an ti ag o ’s cel l ul art el ephone w oul d cont ai n evi dence pert ai ni ng t o the homi ci de. B . “C ri m e of

V i ol ence” W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de term ination that S an ti ag o ’s p r i o rP e n n s y l v a n i a c o n v i c t i o n f o rr e c k l e s s e n d a n g e r me n to f a n o th e rp e r s o n wa s a “ c r i me of vi ol ence . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 587 F. 3d 203, 207 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . U nderthe S entenci ng G uidel i nes, a fi rearm off ense i n v i olat i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g) (1) carr i es a bas e off ens e l evel of 20 i f the off enderhad pr evi ous l ycomm i t t ed a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” or a “ c o n tro lled su b sta n c e o f f e n se .” U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 (a )(4 )(A ). A “ c rim e o f v io len c e ” is defi ned as “a n yo ff en se u n d er f

ed era l or stat e law , p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r a term exce edi ng one y ear , that– ( 1) has as an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, orthr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce agai ns tthe per s on of another , or ( 2) i s bur gl aryof a dw el l i ng, ar s on, orext or t i on, i nvol ves us e of e xpl os i ves , or o therw ise i n v o lves co n d u ct th at pre sen ts a seriou s p o tential ri sk o f p h y sical i n jury t o another . ” I d. § 4 B 1 .2 (a ). T he q uest i on present ed in this app eal i s w hetherthe P enn sy l van i a reckl ess en d an g erm en t of

fe n se is o f th e typ e tha t w o u ld justi fyit s inc lusion w ith in § 4 B 1 . 2 (a)(2),In th e D istric t C o u rt, th e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e d th a t P ars on w a s c o n tro lli n g . O n a p p e a l, 2 h o w e v e r, th e g o v e rn m e n t co n c e d e s th a t, po st- B egay , rec k les s e n d a n g e rm e n t is n o t a c ri m e o f v io le n c e . E ven though t he governm entconce des thi s poi nt , “a gove rnm ent conce s s i on of l aw i s notbi ndi ng on thi s court . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mar i no , 682 F. 2d 449, 4 5 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 6 know n as the “r es i dual pr ovi s i on. ” See J ohns on , 587 F. 3d at208. Sant i ago had previ ou sl ybeen con vict ed an d sentenced to 23 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent for r eckles s endange r m entunder18 Pa. C ons . St at . § 2705. T hats t atut e pr ovi des that“[a ] per s on comm i t s a mi s demeanorof the s econd de gr ee i f he r eckl es s l yengage s i n conductw hi ch p la c e s o r m a yp la c e a n o th e r p e rs o n in d a n g e r o f d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d ily in ju ry.” T he D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatr eckl es s endange rm entfel l w i thi n the r es i dual pr ovi s i on, bas ed on ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. P ars on , 9 5 5 F . 2 d 8 5 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), i n w hi ch w e hel d t hata D el aw ar e convi ct i on forr eckl es s endange r m entw as a cr i m e of vi ol ence . Sant i ago ar gues that , fol l ow i ng B egay v . U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 3 U . S . 1 3 7 (20 0 8 ), P ars on ’ s hol di ng m us tbe r eeva l uat ed. H e ur ges thatr eckl es s endange r m ents houl d no l ongerbe cons i der ed a c r i m e of vi ol ence beca us e i tl acks the r equi s i t e “purpos eful ” m ens r ea t o fal l w i thi n t he r es i dual pr ovi s i on. 2 I n B egay , the S u p re m e C o u rt in terp re ted a v irtu a llyid e n tica l re sid u a l p ro v isio n in th e d e f in itio n o f “ v io le n t f

e lo n y ” u n d e r t h e A rm e d C a re e r C ri m in a l A c t, 1 8 U .S .C . § 924( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) . T he C our tfound thatthe l i s tof exa m pl es i n the r es i dual pr ovi s i on – b u rg lar y , ars o n , ex to rtio n , u se o f e x p lo siv e s – in d ica ted th a t “th e sta tu te c o v e rs o n ly s i m i larcr i m es , r atherthan eve r y c rim e th a t ‘p re se n ts a se rio u s ris k o f p h y sic a l in

ju ryto7

another . ’ ” 553 U . S. at142 ( ci t i ng 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) ) . A nd the C our tconcl uded th a t cr im e s a re sim ilar to th e e n u m e ra ted e x a m p les if th e yin v o lv e “ p u rp o se f u l, vio len t, and aggr es s i ve conduc t . ” I d. at 14 4 -45 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W e have appl i ed B egay ’s a n a ly sis to th e d e f in iti o n o f “ c rim e o f

v io len c e ” a n d h e ld th a t a p rio r c o n v ictio n f a lls w ith in § 4 B 1 .2 (a )’s re sid u a l p ro v isio n “ if it ‘typ ica lly i nvol ve[s ] purpos eful , vi ol ent , and aggr es s i ve conduc t . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. St i ns on , 592 F. 3d 460, 465 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( ci t i ng B egay , 5 5 3 U .S . at 1 4 4 -4 5 ); Johns on , 587 F. 3d at 208. T o det erm i ne w hethera cr i m e i nvol ves “purpos eful , vi ol ent , and aggr es s i ve conduct , ” w e appl y“a c at egor i cal appr oach t o cl as s i fya pr i orconvi ct i on, ” as ki ng

“ w h e th e r th e e lem e n ts o f th e o f f e n se a re o f

th e typ e th a t w o u ld ju stif yits in c lu sio n w ith in the r es i dual pr ovi s i on, w i thouti nqui r i ng i nt o the s peci fi c conduc tof thi s part i cul ar offe nder . ” Johns on , 5 8 7 F . 3 d at 20 8 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). Johns on i nvol ved an i nt ent i onal cr i m e, buti n di ctum w e ques t i oned “w hether re c k les s c o n d u c t m a ya m o u n t to a c rim e o f v io len c e p o st- B egay. ” I d. a t2 1 0 n . 8 . We f u rth e r n o ted th a t “n e a rlye v e ryc o u rt o f a p p e a ls th a t h a s c o n sid e re d th e iss u e h a s h e ld th a t re c k les s c o n d u c t d o e s n o t q u a lifya s a c rim e o f v io len c e p o st- B egay . ” Id . ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. B aker , 5 5 9 F .3 d 4 4 3 , 4 5 3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U nited S tates v. R osebo ro , 551 F .3 d 2 2 6 , 2 4 2 -4 3 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 5 4 4 F . 3 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 6 -87 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. G r ay , 5 3 5 F . 3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 1 -32 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 8 )).E ven though Lee ’ s hol di ng part ed w i th ourpr ece denti n P ars on , “a pa nel of our 3 C our tm aydecl i ne t o fol l ow a pr i ordeci s i on of ourC our tw i thoutthe nec es s i tyof an e n banc de ci s i on w hen the pr i ordeci s i on confl i ct s w i th a Supr eme C our tdeci s i on. ” Johns on , 5 8 7 F . 3 d at 20 7 n . 4 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 8 A ft erthi s appea l w as fi l ed, ourC our ti s s ued i t s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Lee , ___ F. 3d ___, 2010 W L 2757340, at*17 ( 3d C i r . J ul y14, 2010) , i n w hi ch w e j oi ned our s i s t erci r cui t s i n hol di ng that“fol l ow i ng B egay , a convi ct i on form er e r eckl es s nes s cannot cons t i tut e a c r i m e of vi ol ence . ” A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n det erm i ni ng t hat 3 Sant i ago’ s pr i orr eckl es s endange r m entconvi ct i on w as a cr i m e of vi ol ence under U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2 . 1 (a)(4)(A ). T hi s concl us i on, how ever , does notend ouranal y s i s of thi s Sent enci ng G ui del i nes p ro v isio n . T h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t § 2 K 2 .1 (a )(4 )(A ) w a s n o n e th e les s a p p lica b le beca us e the pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( PSR ) al s o not ed thatSant i ago had a pr i or c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o f f e n s e th a t w o u ld a lte rn a tiv e ly ju s tif yth is s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t. E ven though t hi s pr i oroffe ns e w oul d qual i fyas a “c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e, ” w e fi nd th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s a rg u m e n t u n a v a ilin g . I n or dert o i ncr eas e Sant i ago’ s s ent ence bas ed on a pr i orcr i m e of vi ol ence or contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e, the s ent enci ng courtcan “ us e onl ythos e fe l onyconvi ct i ons th a t r e c e iv e c ri m in a l h is to ry p o in ts u n d e r § 4 A 1 .1 (a ), ( b ), o r ( c ).” U .S .S .G . § 2K 2. 1( a) ( 4) ( A ) cmt . n. 10. U nder§ 4A 1. 1( a) - ( c) , a pr i oroffe ns e ca n r ece i ve a maxi m um of 3 cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s i f i tr es ul t ed i n a “s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entexce edi ng oneOn r e ma n d , i f th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td e t e r mi n e s th a tth e o u t c o me o f tr e a t i n g th e s e two 4 s ent ence s as a s i ngl e s ent ence underr epr es ent s Sant i ago’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , i tm aydeci de th a t a n u p w a rd s e n te n c in g d e p a rt u re is w a rr a n te d . U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 c m t. n .3 9 y earand one mont h. ” I d. § 4 A 1 . 1 (a). H ere , the P S R d id n o t assign an ycrim inal h ist o ry p o in ts to S a n tiag o ’s c o n tro lled su b sta n c e o f f e n se b e c a u se h e w a s s im u ltan e o u sly s ent ence d forboth t hi s cr i m e and a pr i ores cape offe ns e. T he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes di r ectthatw hen an of

fende ri s s ent ence d on the s ame dayfortw o cr i m es comm i t t ed w i thoutan i nt erveni ng arr es t , the tw o s ent ence s ar e t o be cons i der ed a s i ngl e s ent ence for c ri m in a l h is to ry p u rp o s e s . I d. § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 2) . Sant i ago’ s es cape and contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e s ent ence s w er e, acc or di ngl y , combi ned as a s i ngl e s ent ence . T he PSR as s i gned 3 po i nts t o the escape cri m e, w hich i s the sam e nu m ber of p oint s that the escap e off ense w ou l d h ave recei ved on i t s ow n. B ecause the add i t i on of the con trol l ed sub st ance o ffen se di d noti ncr eas e the cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s forthe es cape offe ns e, the contr ol l ed s u b s ta n c e o f

f e n s e d id n o t r e c e iv e a n yc ri m in a l h is to ry p o in ts u n d e r § 4 A 1 .1 (a ), ( b ), o r ( c ). See i d. § 4A 1. 1( f) , cmt . n. 6. T her efor e, thi s pr i orconvi ct i on cannots erve as an alt ern ati v e jus ti fica ti o n fo r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f § 2 K 2 . 1 (a)(4)(A ). 4 B eca us e Sant i ago’ s pr i orr eckl es s endange r m entoffe ns e w as nota “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” and hi s contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e r ece i ved no cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s , the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n appl y i ng § 2K 2. 1( a) ( 4) ( A ) t o i ncr eas e hi s s ent ence . C . F el on i n P os s es s i on of H andgu n and A m m uni t i on Sant i ago’ s thi r d and fi nal ar gum enti s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr oneous l yent er ed10

s epar at e count s of convi ct i on forpos s es s i on both of a ha ndgun and of a m m uni t i on under 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). B e c a u se th is iss u e w a s n o t p re se rv e d in th e D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill rev erse o n lyif th e D istri ct C o u rtco m m itted a p lai n erro r th at af fe cted S an ti ag o ’s su b stan ti al ri g h ts. F ed . R . C ri m . P . 5 2 (b); U ni t ed Stat es v. Tann , 577 F. 3d 533, 535 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . I n Tann , w e hel d t hat“pos s es s i on of both a fi r earm and amm uni t i on, s ei zed at th e sa m e ti m e in th e sa m e loc ati o n , su p p o rt s o n lyo n e c o n v ict ion an d sen tenc e u n d er § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ).” 5 7 7 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 . S a n tiag o a ss e rts th a t Tann di ct at es thathi s s i m ul t aneous pos s es s i on of both a fi r earm and amm uni t i on s houl d countas one convi ct i on, even though the gun w as found out s i de the home and the amm uni t i on w as di s cover ed i ns i de. O ur hol di ng i n Tann , how ever , l eftopen the pos s i bi l i tythatm ul t i pl e convi ct i ons for pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm and amm uni t i on m i ghtbe pr operi f theyw er e s ei zed i n di ffe r ent lo c a tio n s o r i f

th e yw e re a c q u ir e d in s e p a ra te tr a n s a c tio n s . I d. at536- 37. T her efor e, Tann d o e s n o t m a k e it pers e i m pr opert o i m pos e s epar at e convi ct i ons and s ent ence s for the s i m ul t aneous pos s es s i on of both a fi r earm and amm uni t i on. T o m eethi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng pl ai n err or , Sant i ago ar gues that , had the pol i ce exec ut ed the w arr antm om ent s ear l i erw hi l e he w as s t i l l i n hi s hom e, he coul d nothave been c har ged w i th m ul t i pl e off ens es beca us e the gun and the amm uni t i on w oul d have b o th b e e n in th e sa m e lo c a tio n . W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d b yth is a rg u m e n t b e c a u se m u lti p le convi ct i ons w oul d s t i l l have be en appr opr i at e i f the gun and the amm uni t i on had bee n pur chas ed s epar at el y . B ut , beca us e Sant i ago pl ed gui l tyt o the s epar at e count s and di d not11

obj ectt o the s epar at e convi ct i ons , the r ecor d i s devoi d of anyevi dence conce rni ng how an d w h en thes e it em s w ere ac q u ir ed . A cc o rdin g ly , w e c an n o t fi n d that the D istri ct C o u rt comm i t t ed pl ai n err ori n ent er i ng s epar at e convi ct i ons pur s uantt o § 922( g) ( 1) forgun and amm uni t i on pos s es s i on. I I I . C oncl usi on F o r th e re a so n s d isc u ss e d a b o v e , w e w ill a f f irm S a n tiag o ’s c o n v ictio n , b u t w e w ill vaca t e hi s s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng.