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 10-8-2010 

# U SA v . T roy Le ak e 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 . 09-4084

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 . T r o y L e ake " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 458. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/458NOT 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- 4084

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TRO Y LEA KE, a/ k/a TroyJones, A ppel l ant

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 00655) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. Pet erG . Sher i dan

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober6, 2010 B e f o re : J O R D A N , A L D IS E R T , a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: O ct ober8, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . T r oyL eake appea l s fr om a j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence ent er ed bythe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyfol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on for2

u n law fu l po sses sion o f a firearm , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). B ec au se th ere w a s n o e rr o r i n th e c h a lle n g e d ru lin g s , w e w ill a f f ir m . I . Backg r ound O n A p ril 5 , 2 0 0 7 , aro u n d m id n ig h t, S e rg e a n t T h o m a s R u a n e a n d O f f ice r D a v id G ol pe ( col l ect i vel y“the off i cer s ”) of the N ew ark Pol i ce D epart m entw er e patr ol l i ng a hi gh cr i m e ar ea of

N ew ark, N ew J er s ey , i n a mar ked pol i ce c ar , w i th Ser geantR uane dr i vi ng and O ffi cerG ol pe i n t he pas s engers eat . A s the off i cer s tr avel ed w es ton Suss ex A venue theynot i ced Leake , w ho w as byhi m s el f and w al ki ng t ow ar ds them on t he o p p o site sid e o f

th e stre e t n e a r th e so u th w e st c o rn e r o f S u ss e x a n d 5 th S tre e t w ith h is ri g h t han d p o sit ion ed o n h is r igh t hip, ap p are n tl yh o lding so m ethin g . A s the o ff icers dr ove cl os er , eac h eventual l ycoul d s ee thatL eake w as carry i ng a gun, w hi ch pr om pt ed them t o s t op thei rpatr ol carand or derL eake t o dr op the gun. I n r es pons e, L eake t ol d the o f f i c e r s th a th e d i d n o th a v e a g u n , a n d b e g a n t o ru n a w a y. O ffi cerG ol pe gotoutof the pol i ce c arand cha s ed Leake on f oot , w hi l e R uane dr ove af t erL eake i n t he patr ol car . R uane qui ckl yr eal i zed thatthe patr ol carw as u n n ec essa ry , h o w ev er, be ca u se L ea k e se em ed to b e into x icated an d w as ru n n ing v ery s l ow l y ; ther efor e, he s t opped the patr ol carand bega n chas i ng L eake on footw i th O ffi cer G o lp e . T h e c h a se e n d e d h a lf a b lo c k late r w h e n L e a k e trip p e d o n th e c u rb o f a sid e w a lk and dr opped a s i l verr evol ver . W hen the off i cer s arr i ved atL eake ’ s pos i t i on, L eake r efus ed t o be handc uffe d, for ci ng Ser geantR uane t o begi n w r es t l i ng w i th L eake ’ s hands3

and arm s . D ur i ng the s truggl e, the off i cer s not i ced thatL eake had anotherfi r earm i n the w ai s tband of hi s pant s . L eake r eac hed forthatgun, and Ser geantR uane s truck hi m and th e n s u c c e e d e d in h a n d c u f f in g h im . T he guns L eake w as carr y i ng w er e a . 38 cal i berSm i th & W es s on r evol ver , l oaded w i th fi ve r ounds of . 38 cal i beramm uni t i on, and a . 357 m agnum R ugerpi s t ol w i th a d e f a c e d s e ri a l n u m b e r, l o a d e d w ith th re e b a ll- tip p e d a n d tw o h o llo w p o in t b u lle ts . A . L eake’s Moti on t o S up press O n A ugus t6, 2007, L eake w as char ged i n a one- counti ndi ctm entw i th i l l egal p o s s e s s i o n o f

a mm u n i t i o n a n d f

i r e a r ms , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . On M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 8 , L e a k e f iled a m o tio n to su p p re ss , arg u in g th a t “s in c e [ h e ] w a s illeg a lly s ear ched a nd s ei zed, abs entanyr eas onabl e s us pi ci on thatcr i m i nal act i vi tyw as afootor probab l e cause to bel i eve thathe h ad co m m i t t ed a cri m e, anyevidence o btai ned as a re su lt o f th a t se a rc h a n d se izu re is in a d m iss ib le.” (JA a t 1 4 .) L e a k e a lso o f f e re d h is ver s i on of the eve nt s l eadi ng up t o hi s arr es ti n a s w orn aff i davi tcl ai m i ng: 2. L at e i n t he eve ni ng of A pr i l 4, 2007, I w as w al ki ng al ong nearthe corner o f S u s s e x a n d N o rt h 5 S tr e e t in N e w a rk , N e w J e rs e y . th 3. I w as w al ki ng hom e bym y s el f, m i ndi ng m yow n bus i nes s . I w as not y e llin g , f ig h tin g , o r e n g a g e d in a n ys o rt o f c ri m in a l a c tiv ity. 4. W hi l e I w as w al ki ng, I w as nothol di ng a s m al l s i l vergun i n m yhand, norw as ther e anythi ng pr otrudi ng fr om underneath m ycl othes . A per s on l o o k i n g a tme wo u l d n o th a v e s e e n a g u n i n myh a n d o rp r o tru d i n g f r o m my c lo th e s .4

5. A pol i ce of

fi cerappr oache d m e and s truck me t o the gr ound w i th a gun and the off

i cer s then s ear ched me. (JA at 28 . ) O n N ovember17, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC ourthel d a hea r i ng on L eake ’ s m ot i on and hear d t es t i m onyfr om Ser geantR uane a nd O ffi cerG ol pe. I n m os tr es pect s , Ser geant R u an e a n d O ff

icer G o lpe o ff

ere d sim il ar a cc o u n ts of the e v en ts l ea d ing u p to L ea k e’s arr es t . B oth t es t i fi ed thattheyw er e on patr ol w hen theynot i ced Leake w al ki ng al one ar ound m i dni ghti n a hi gh cr i m e ar ea; thatupon appr oachi ng L eake , theys aw a gun on L eake ’ s r i ghthi p; and thatw hen theys t opped thei rpatr ol carand or der ed Leake t o dr op th e g u n , L e a k e re f

u se d to d ro p th e w e a p o n a n d in ste a d ra n u n til h e w a s u lti m a tely ap p reh en d ed b ythe o ff

icers. H o w ev er, L ea k e a rgu ed that n eith er o f th e o ff icers w ere cr edi bl e due t o “[i ] ncons i s t enci es and i m pl aus i bi l i t i es aboutw hattheys aw , w her e they w ere in relati o n to M r. L ea k e, an d the e v en ts as theyu n fo lded . ” (JA at 60 . ) M os tof the di s cr epanc i es ci t ed byL eake pert ai ned t o the off i cer s ’ att i r e on the ni ghtof the arr es t , thei ri ni t i al r eas on forappr oachi ng L eake , and w hethertheys aw L eake h o ld in g th e f

ire a rm w h e n th e ya p p ro a c h e d h im in th e ir p a tro l ca r o r w h e th e r it w a s m e re ly on hi s hi p. W i th r es pectt o t he off i cer s ’ att i r e, Ser geantR uane t es t i fi ed that , on the ni ght of Leake’ s arr es t , he and O ffi cerG ol pe w er e on patr ol i n a mar ked pol i ce ve hi cl e and that he w as dr es s ed i n pl ai n cl othes . O ffi cerG ol pe al s o r eca l l ed bei ng i n a mar ked pol i ce v e h icle , b u t h e c o u ld n o t re c a ll w h e th e r h e a n d S e rg e a n t R u a n e w e re in u n if o rm o r in5

pl ai n cl othes and thoughtthattheyw oul d have be en i n uni form due t o the fa ctthatthey w e re in a m a rk e d p o lic e v e h ic le . B oth offi cer s t es t i fi ed thattheydeci ded t o appr oach Leake pr i ort o s eei ng thathe had a gun, buteac h offi ceri ndi cat ed di ffe r entr eas ons fordoi ng s o. Ser geantR uane tes tifie d th a t h e b e c a m e su sp icio u s o f L e a k e e v e n b e f

o re se e in g th a t h e h a d a g u n , d u e to th e m a n n e r in w h ich L e a k e w a s w a lk in g d o w n th e stre e t:

. . . w hi l e w e w er e dr i vi ng cl os ert o hi m , w e s ee hi s r i ghtarm on hi s hi p ar ea, lef t ar m sw in g in g . D u e to m ye x p e rie n c e re c o v e rin g g u n s f ro m in d iv id u a ls and nar cot i cs , verys us pi ci ous act i vi ty , a l otof peopl e guar d the w eapon or th e n a rc o tics th a t w a y . A s w e d ro v e c lo se r w e se e it’s a g u n , g u n in h is h a n d . A t w h ic h tim e , w e p u lle d u p , g o t o u t o f o u r c a r; p o lic e , d ro p th e g u n . H e s t art ed runni ng. ( J A at93. ) O n t he otherhand, O ffi cerG ol pe di d notm ent i on the manneri n w hi ch Leake w as w al ki ng dow n t he s tr eetand expl ai ned hi s r eas on forw ant i ng t o ques t i on L eake as foll ow s: A : I n itia lly w e s a w M r. L e a k e w a lk in g . H e w a s th e o n ly p e rs o n th e re . W e l i ke t o chal l enge pe opl e w al ki ng ar ound at12 cl ock atni ghtdoi ng a b s o lu te ly n o th in g p e r s e o r w a n d e ri n g . It ’s a d ru g a re a , c ity o f N e w a rk . L otof s hoot i ngs , ki l l i ng. So w e cha l l enge pe opl e. L otof t i m es w e s ee s om ebodyw al ki ng w e pul l up, hey , w hat ’ s goi ng on? Q: Yo u a p p r o a c h th e m, tr yt o t a l k t o th e m? A : C o rr e c t. Q : I s thatw haty ou di d her e? A : T hat ’ s w hatw e i ni t i al l ys t art ed t o do as w e w as comi ng dow n t o s ee w h e re h e w a s c o m in g f ro m . P rio r to e v e r sto p p in g , sa y in g a n yth in g to h im as w e w er e pul l i ng up, that ’ s w hen w e s aw the gun.6

Q: So i twas y o u ri n t e n t i o n t o s t o p a n d c h a l l e n g e h i m a s y o u s a y ? A : Y eah. I tw oul d have be en myi nt ent i on t o t ake a l ook athi m , s ee w hat he w as doi ng. (JA at 14 9 . ) Fi nal l y , Ser geantR uane t es t i fi ed on di r ectexami nat i on thathe s aw a gun on L eake’s r i gh thip. O n cross- exam i nati on , ho w ever, S ergeant R uan e t est i fi ed thathe als o s aw L eake hol di ng the gun. O ffi cerG ol pe al s o r eca l l ed s eei ng the gun nea rL eake ’ s r i ght hi p. H ow ever , unl i ke Ser geantR uane, O ffi cerG ol pe neve ractual l ys aw L eake hol di ng th e g u n . O n Jan u ary2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rtd en ied L ea k e’s m o ti o n to su p p ress. In doi ng s o, the C our tr ej ect ed Leake’ s ar gum entthatSer geantR uane a nd O ffi cerG ol pe w er e notcr edi bl e, fi ndi ng thatthe di s cr epanc i es i n thei rt es t i m onyw er e “mi nor ” and “have l i t t l e bea r i ng, i f any , on the ul t i m at e fa ct s adduce d atthe hea r i ng, ” namel y , that “the off i cer s w er e on patr ol w hen theynot i ced D efe ndantw al ki ng al one atm i dni ght ; t hat upon appr oachi ng the D efe ndant , the off i cer s s aw a gun on D efe ndant ’ s r i ghthi p; and th a t D e f e n d a n t, w h e n sto p p e d , ref u se d to d ro p th e w e a p o n a n d in ste a d ra n u n til h e f e ll and w as ul t i m at el yapp rehend ed b yR uan e. ” (J A at86 . ) A ft er cr edit i ng the o ffi cers ’ tes tim o n y , the C o u rt h e ld th a t “[ o ]n c e th e o f f ice rs a p p ro a c h e d a n d sa w th e f ire a rm in [Leake’ s ] hand, theyhad, atthe veryl eas t , a r eas onabl e and a r t i cul abl e s us pi ci on s uffi ci entt o per form a T erry s t op. ” (I

d. )7

B . T ri al Test i m ony R ega rdi ng“H ollow -Po i nt” B ullet

s O n J une 2, 2009, L eake pr ocee ded t o tr i al . D ur i ng the governm ent ’ s cas e- i n- chi ef, S e rg e a n t R u a n e tes tifie d th a t o n e o f th e g u n s re c o v e re d f

ro m L e a k e o n th e n ig h t o f h is arr es tw as l oaded w i th t w o hol l ow - poi ntbul l et s . L eake ’ s couns el obj ect ed t o the l i ne of ques t i oni ng, ar gui ng that“[i ] t ’ s nota r el evantel ementof the ca s e. ” ( J A at173. ) T he D i s tr i ctC our toverrul ed the obj ect i on, s t at i ng “[r ] el evanc e i s as t o the w eapon. I ’ l l al l ow i t . ” (I d. ) G ol pe al s o t es t i fi ed aboutthe hol l ow - poi ntbul l et s and expl ai ned the di ffe r ence b e tw e e n h o llo w -p o in t an d b a ld -p o in t b u llets a s f o llo w s: “ H o llo w p o in t is d e sig n e d to expand, orm or e comm onl yr efe r r ed t o i n the medi a as the cop- ki l l erbul l et s . ” ( J A at219- 2 0 . ) L ea k e’s c o u n sel o b jected an d also m o v ed fo r a m istri al ba sed o n O ff icer G o lpe’s t es t i m onyabout“cop- ki l l erbul l et s . ” The D i s tr i ctC our toverrul ed the obj ect i on and decl i ned t o gr anta mi s tr i al . T he C our toffe r ed t o gi ve the j urya cur at i ve i ns truct i on, but L e a k e ’s c o u n s e l d e c lin e d th e o f f e r. O n J u n e 3 , 2 0 0 9 , th e ju ry re tu rn e d a v e rd ic t o f g u ilty. C . Sent enci ng T h e U n ited S tate s P ro b a tio n O f f ice p re p a re d a p re se n ten c e in v e stig a tio n re p o rt, w h ich c a lcu late d L e a k e ’s s e n ten c in g ra n g e a t 9 7 to 1 2 1 m o n th s o f im p riso n m e n t. H ow ever , due t o t he s t atut orym axi m um t erm of 10 y ear s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 922, t he s ent ence w as cappe d at120 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent . T he advi s oryr ange w as bas ed on a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I I and a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 28, w hi ch w as composed of a8

bas e off ens e l evel of 24 and a four - l evel enhanc ementunderU . S. S. G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 4) for p o s s e s s in g a f

ir e a rm w ith a n o b lite ra te d s e ri a l n u m b e r. L eake obj ect ed t o t he enha ncement , ar gui ng that“[i t ] i s uns ound beca us e the C om m i s s i on neverexpl ai ned how i tadvanc es the purpos es of s ent enci ng, and much ev iden ce sh o w s itd o es n o t” (JA at 33 2 -33 ), an d b ec au se, un li k e 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (k), w h ich c ri m inalizes the k n o w ing p o sses sion o f a firearm w ith an o b li terated serial nu m b er, § 2 K 2 .1 (b )(4 )(B ) c o n tain s n o m e n s re a e lem e n t. T h u s, L e a k e c laim e d th a t: T hi s enhanc ementi s . . . “cr i m i nal i z[i ng] act i vi tyon the che ap. ” See U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( R e n d e ll, J ., c o n c u rr in g ). Poss es s i ng a fi r earm w i th an obl i t er at ed s er i al num beri s an i ndepende nt c rim in a l o f

f e n se , p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (k ). In o rd e r to p ro v e th is offe ns e, the governm entw oul d have t o es t abl i s h bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt notonl yknow i ng pos s es s i on of the fi r earm butal s o know l edge thatthe s e ri a l n u m b e r h a d b e e n o b lite ra te d . See U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ayw ood , 363 F . 3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he gui del i nes , on the otherhand, perm i tM r . L eake ’ s offe ns e l evel t o be enhanc ed byfourl evel s bas ed on a s how i ng bya mer e pr eponder ance of the ev iden ce o f th e f

ac t th at th e se ri al nu m b er w as o b li terated . A b sen t a m o re c o m p e lli n g e x p lan a tio n f ro m th e C o m m iss io n th a t th is d ra m a tic in c re a se in th e e n h a n c e m e n t w a s im p lem e n ted th ro u g h a n e x e rc ise o f its c h a ra c ter istic i ns t i tut i onal r ol e, thi s s peci fi c enha ncementi s ent i t l ed t o l i t t l e def er ence as a u s e f u l m e a s u re o f

th e m in im a lly su f

f ic ie n t s e n te n c e . ( J A at332- 34. ) T he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed Leake’ s ar gum entand appl i ed the enhanc ement , r el y i ng on § 2K 2. 1 comm ent arynot e 8( B ) , w hi ch s t at es that“[s ] ubs ect i on ( b) ( 4) appl i es r egar dl es s of w hetherthe def endantknew orhad r eas on t o bel i eve thatt he fi r earm . . . had an a l t er ed orobl i t er at ed s er i al num ber . ” A ccor di ngl y , on O ct ober5, 2009,T he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyhad j ur i s di ct i on 1 pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 9 the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d L eake t o 97 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent , t o be fol l ow ed byt hr ee y e a rs o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . O n O c to b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , L e a k e f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. I I . D i s cus s i on 1 O n a p p e a l, L e a k e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to su p p re ss , allo w in g tes tim o n yth a t o n e o f th e g u n s re c o v e re d f

ro m L e a k e w a s lo a d e d w ith “hol l ow - poi ntbul l et s , ” and f ai l i ng t o gr anta mi s tr i al fol l ow i ng O ffi cerG ol pe’ s t es t i m ony about“cop- ki l l erbul l et s . ” Leake a l s o cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n cal cul at i ng hi s s ent ence byappl y i ng § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 4) ’ s enhanc ementforpos s es s i ng a fi r earm w i th an obl i t er at ed s er i al num ber . W e addr es s eac h of Leake’ s ar gum ent s i n turn. A . L eake’s Moti on t o S up press “[W e] r evi ew [] the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s forcl earerr oras t o th e u n d e r l yi n g f

a c tu a l f i n d i n g s a n d e x e r c i s e [ ] p l e n a ry r e v i e w o f th e D i s tr i c tC o u r t 's appl i cat i on of the l aw t o t hos e fa ct s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 2 8 0 F . 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H er e, the fa ct s l eadi ng up t o L eake ’ s arr es t , as des cr i bed bythe off i cer s and c re d ite d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt , re v e a l th a t L e a k e w a s c a rr y in g a f ir e a rm in p la in v ie w . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s a c c o u n t o f th e e v id e n c e is p la u s ib le a t th e v e ry le a s t. U ni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , 558 F. 3d 270, 277 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( “I f the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s acc ount10

of the evi dence i s pl aus i bl e i n l i ghtof the r ecor d vi ew ed i n i t s ent i r ety , w e w i l l not r ever s e i teven i f, as the tr i erof fa ct , w e w oul d have w ei ghed the evi dence di ffe r ent l y . ”) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ); G r i derv. Keys t one H eal th P lan C ent . , I

nc. , 580 F. 3d 119, 137 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( “[w ] e r evi ew cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons , l i ke otherfac tual fi ndi ngs , under a c lea rlye rro n e o u s s tan d a rd . . .. T h is re v iew is m o re d e f e re n tial w ith re sp e c t to det erm i nat i ons aboutthe cr edi bi l i tyof w i tnes s es ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he m aj or i tyof Ser geantR uane’ s and O ffi cerG ol pe’ s r ecol l ect i ons of the eve nt s l eadi ng up t o L eake ’ s arr es tw er e cons i s t ent . B oth offi cer s t es t i fi ed thattheyw er e on patr ol w hen theynot i ced Leake w al ki ng al one ar ound m i dni ghti n a hi gh cr i m e ar ea; thatupon a p p ro a c h in g L e a k e , the ysa w a g u n o n L e a k e ’s r ig h t h ip ; an d th a t w h e n th e ysto p p e d th e ir patr ol carand or der ed Leake t o dr op the gun, L eake r efus ed t o dr op the w eapon a nd in ste a d ra n u n til h e w a s u lti m a telya p p re h e n d e d b yth e o f f ice rs. F u rth e r, w e a g re e w ith the D i s tr i ctC our tthatanydi s cr epanc i es i n the off i cer s ’ t es t i m onyar e mi norand have l i t t l e, i f any , bear i ng on the ul t i m at e i s s ues . T hus , w e r ej ectL eake ’ s ar gum entthatthe D istric t C o u rt c lea rlye rre d in a c c e p tin g th e o f f ice rs’ v e rsio n o f

th e e v e n ts a ss o c iate d w ith th e a rr e s t. W e al s o di s agr ee w i th L eake ’ s as s ert i on thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n appl y i ng the governi ng l aw t o t he fa ct s . Pur s uantt o the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Ter r y v. O h io , 3 9 2 U .S . 1 (1 9 6 8 ), “a n o f f ice r m a y , co n sis ten t w ith th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, conducta br i ef, i nves t i gat orys t op w hen the off i cerhas a r eas onabl e, art i cul abl e s us pi ci on11

thatcr i m i nal act i vi tyi s afoot . ” Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 1 3 F . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 1 (3d C ir . 2005) ( ci t i ng I

l l i nois v. W

ar dl ow , 528 U . S. 119, 123 ( 2000) ) . T he Supr eme C our thas al s o hel d thatan off

i cerm ayconducta r eas onabl e s ear ch forw eapons w hen: [The offi cer ] has r eas on t o bel i eve thathe i s deal i ng w i th an arm ed and dan gerous i nd i vidual , regar dles s of w hetherhe h as probab l e cause to arres t the i ndi vi dual fora cr i m e. T he off i cerneed notbe abs ol ut el ycert ai n that the i ndi vi dual i s arm ed; the i s s ue i s w hethera r eas onabl yprudent[per s on] i n the ci r cumst ance s w oul d be w arr ant ed i n the bel i ef thathi s s afe tyorthat o f o th e rs w a s in d a n g e r. T e rr y v . O h io , 392 U . S. 1, 27 ( 1968) . I n l i ghtof the for egoi ng, Ser geantR uane a nd O ffi cerG ol pe cl ear l yhad, atthe veryl eas t , a r eas onabl e and a r t i cul abl e s us pi ci on s uffi ci entt o conducta T erry s t op once theyappr oache d L eake and obs erved thathe had a f ir e a rm . Fi nal l y , i ti s of no cons equenc e thatO ffi cerG ol pe w ant ed t o appr oach Leake and ques t i on hi m , even be for e the off i cer s s aw thatL eake w as carry i ng a gun . U ni t ed Stat es v. D r ayton , 536 U . S. 194, 201 ( 2002) ( “Even w hen l aw enfor cementoffi cer s have no bas i s fors us pect i ng a part i cul ari ndi vi dual , theym aypos e ques t i ons , as k for i dent i fi cat i on, and r eques tcons entt o s ear ch . . . pr ovi ded theydo noti nduce c ooper at i on b yco erc ive m ea n s. ”). B . A dm iss io n o

f T e stim o ny R eg a rd in g“H o llo w -P o in t” B u llets W e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . G i bs on v. Mayorand C ounci lof C i t y of W i lm i ngt on , 3 5 5 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 3 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W ith r es pectt o evi dent i arydet erm i nat i ons m ade unde rFeder al R ul e of Evi dence 403, w e have12

sa id th a t “w e o w e th e D istric t C o u rt v e rysu b sta n tial d isc re tio n in its ru lin g o n w h e th e r to admi tt es t i m onyunderR ul e 403, ” and that“a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s bal anci ng underR ul e 403 w ill o n ly b e re v e rs e d if

its a n a lysis a n d c o n c lu s io n s a re a rb itr a ry o r i rr a tio n a l.” U ni t ed Stat es v. D i az , 5 9 2 F .3 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). E vi dence i s r el evanti f i thas “anyt endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of anyfac tt hat is o f c o n se q u e n c e to th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th e a c tio n m o re p ro b a b le o r le ss p ro b a b le th a n it w o u ld b e w ith o u t th e e v id e n c e .” F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 1 . R u le 4 0 1 ’s d e f in iti o n o f re lev a n c e is “verybr oad” a nd “does notr ai s e a hi gh s t andar d. ” G i bs on , 3 5 5 F . 3 d at 23 2 . H o w ev er, e v e n re lev a n t ev id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d if “ its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b sta n tially outw ei ghed bythe dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng t he j ury , orbycons i der at i ons of undue de l ay , w as t e of t i m e, orneedl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 403. A ccor di ng t o L eake , beca us e “the governm entopt ed t o pr os ecut e [hi m ] for firearm s p o sses sion , ” (A p p ell an t’ s O p . B r. a t 3 6 ), th e o n lyf a c ts o f c o n se q u e n c e in h is pr os ecut i on w er e “w hether[he] ( 1) pos s es s ed a f i r earm ( 2) aft erpr evi ous l yhavi ng been convi ct ed of a fel ony . ” (I d. ) A c c o rd in g ly , h e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in a llo w in g S e rg e a n t R u a n e a n d O f f ice r G o lp e to tes tifya b o u t th e h o llo w -p o in t b u llets b ec au se “ [e ]vid en ce reg ard ing the n ature o f th e b u ll ets ad d s n o thing to the jury ’s d e ter m in a tio n o f

th e iss u e s b e f

o re it, it i s n o t n e c e ss a ryf o r th e g o v e rn m e n t to p ro v e its13

cas e, and i ts erves no purpos e otherthan t o i nfl ame and t o pr ej udi ce the j ury , w hi ch vi ol at es R ul e 401 and Rul e 403 of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence . ” (Id . at 34 . ) C o n tra ryto L e a k e ’s a ss e rtio n th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t o p ted to p ro se c u te h im so lely forpos s es s i on of fi r earm s , he w as actual l ychar ged under§ 922( g) ( 1) w i th pos s es s i on of fi r earm s and w i th pos s es s i on of amm uni t i on. A nd w hi l e the s i m ul t aneous pos s es s i on of a firearm an d am m u n it ion ca n o n lysu p p o rto n e c o n v ict ion an d sen tenc e u n d er § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ), U ni t ed Stat es v. Tann , 577 F. 3d 533, 537 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , a def endantm aybe convi ct ed u n d e r § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) f

o r p o ss e ss in g e ith e r. 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) (p ro v id in g th a t “[ i]t sh a ll be unl aw ful foranyper s on . . . w ho has been c onvi ct ed . . . of a c r i m e puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm entfora t erm exce edi ng one y ear. . . t o . . . pos s es s i n oraff ect i ng comm er ce, anyfi r earm oramm uni t i on”) . T hus , evi dence of amm uni t i on w as cert ai nl yr el evant , and the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng Ser geantR uane a nd O ffi cer G ol pe t o t es t i fythattheyfound bul l et s i n the fi r earm s L eake w as carry i ng. I ti s a cl os er q u e stio n w h e th e r th e sp e c if ic typ e o f

a m m u n iti o n w a s re lev a n t an d w h e th e r, if re lev a n t, i t w a s a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 . E v e n a ss u m in g , h o w e v e r, th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld have s us t ai ned an obj ect i on t o t he t es t i m onyaboutthe type of bul l et s , anyerr orw as c lea rlyh a rm les s in th e f a c e o f th e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f L e a k e ’s g u ilt .14

C . Leake’s Mot i on f ora Mis tr i al

“ W e re v iew th e d e n ial o f a m o tio n f

o r a m istria l b a se d o n a w itn e ss ’s a lleg e d ly pr ej udi ci al comm ent s foran abus e of di s cr et i on. ” U nited S tates v. L ore , 430 F. 3d 190, 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). W hen ana l y zi ng a mot i on form i s tr i al , “[o] uri nqui ryfocus es on w hetherany c o n d u c t a t tr ia l w a s s o p re ju d ic ia l th a t d e f

e n d a n t w a s d e p ri v e d o f a f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h t.” U ni t ed Stat es v. X

avi er , 2 F. 3d 1281, 1285 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . W e have s etfor th the fo ll o w ing three fa ctors to g u ide o u r an aly sis: “(1 ) w h ethe r [the w itn ess’s] rem ark s w ere pr onounced a nd per s i s t ent , cr eat i ng a l i kel i hood theyw oul d m i s l ead a nd pr ej udi ce the j ury ; ( 2) the s tr ength of the otherevi dence ; and ( 3) cur at i ve ac t i on t aken bythe di s tr i ct court . ” L ore , 4 3 0 F .3 d a t 2 0 7 . L eake a rgues that the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in fai l i ng t o g ranta m i stri al becau se

“ [ t] h e te s tim o n ya b o u t ‘ c o p k ille r’ b u lle ts w a s s o p re ju d ic ia l a m is tr ia l w a s re q u ir e d .” ( Ap p e l l a n t ’ s Op . Br . a t3 8 . ) We d i s a g r e e . Of f i c e rGo l p e ’ s s i n g l e s t a t e me n tth a th o l l o wp o in t b u lle ts a re “ m o re c o m m o n ly re f e rr e d to in th e m e d ia a s th e c o p -k ille r b u lle ts ,” o b v io u s ly d o e s n o t a m o u n t to p ro n o u n c e d a n d p e rs is te n t r e m a rk s , L ore , 430 F. 3d at207 (“a sing le st atem en t bya w itn ess .. . h ard lyca n b e d ee m ed p ron o u n ce d an d p ersist en t”), a n d , as a lre a d yn o ted , the re c o rd c o n tain s o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f L e a k e ’s g u ilt , i n c l u d i n g th e e y e wi tn e s s t e s t i mo n yo f two p o l i c e o f

f i c e r s th a tL e a k e wa s c a rry i n g two firearm s, w h ich w ere b o th rec o v ere d d u ri n g the a rrest. In a d d it ion , the D istri ct C o u rt15

o f f e re d to is s u e a c u ra tiv e in s tru c tio n , w h ic h L e a k e d e c lin e d . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 4 8 7 F .3 d 6 1 8 , 6 2 2 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the mot i on fora mi s tr i al w her e the def endanthad dec l i ned the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s offe rt o gi ve a c ur at i ve i ns truct i on t o the j ury ) . T hus , i n l i ghtof the str en g th o f th e o ther e v iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al ag ains t L ea k e a n d the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o f f e r to g iv e a c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c l i n i n g t o g r a n ta mi s tr i a l b a s e d o n Go l p e ’ s s i n g l e s t a t e me n tth a th o l l o wp o in t b u lle ts a re m o re c o m m o n ly k n o w n in th e m e d ia a s “ c o p -k ille r” b u lle ts . D . Sen t encing E nh an cem ent f or O bli t erat ed S eri al N um ber on F i rearm W e re v ie w th e c ri m in a l 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 in tw o s ta g e s . U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 567 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) . Fi r s t , w e “e ns ur e[] th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e d n o sig n if ica n t p ro c e d u ra l er ro r, su c h a s f a ili n g to cal cul at e ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange. ” I d. Second, “i f a di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s p ro c e d u re p a s s e s m u s te r, w e th e n ... c o n s id e r i ts s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s ,” w hi ch “r equi r es us nott o focus on one ortw o fac t or s , buton the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s . ” I

d. (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ). “A t b o th sta g e s o f o u r re v iew , the p a rty chal l engi ng the s ent ence has the bur den of de m ons tr at i ng unr eas onabl enes s , ” and “ [t ] he abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d appl i es t o both ourpr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s i nqui r i es . ” I d.16

S ec ti o n 2 K 2 . 1 (b)(4 )(B ) of the S en tenc ing G u idelines p rov ides that “if a n yfirearm

.. . h a d a n a ltere d o r o b lit e ra ted se ria l n u m b e r, in c re a se b y4 lev e ls.” C o m m e n tar yn o te 8( B ) s t at es that“[s ] ubs ect i on ( b) ( 4) appl i es r egar dl es s of w hetherthe def endantknew or had r eas on t o bel i eve thatthe fi r earm . . . had an a l t er ed orobl i t er at ed s er i al num ber . ” H er e, L eake does notar gue thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n cal cul at i ng hi s G ui del i nes r ange bym i s cons trui ng § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 4) orfai l i ng t o appl ythe G ui del i ne enha ncementas w r i t t en. R ather , L eake ’ s ar gum enti s that“[t ] he obl i t er at ed- s er i al num berenhanc ement s houl d notappl y. . . beca us e the enha ncementi s uns ound and notbas ed on pr operr es ear ch and pol i cy ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at41) and bec aus e, i n L eake ’ s vi ew , “the l ack of a mens rea r equ i rem ent i s probl em at i c, i n thatan indi vidual faces a m aj or sent encing i ncrease w i thoutanyr eal evi dence thathe knew thata s er i al num berw as defa ced, m uch l es s any pr oof thathe w as r es pons i bl e forthe obl i t er at i on. ” (Id . at 25 . ) L eake f urther ar gu es that “[t ]he di stri ctcou rthad the au tho ri tyt o co nsi der these p o li cyb ase d arg u m en ts . . . u n d er K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 85 ( 2007) , ” and err ed byfai l i ng t o gi ve “s er i ous cons i der at i on [t o] [hi s ] ar gum ent s ” and byempl oy i ng a “stri ct fo cu s o n the lan g u ag e o f th e g u ideline p rov isi o n . ” (A p p ell an t’ s O p . B r. at 42 . ) H ow ever , “a di s tr i ctcourti s notr equi r ed t o engage i n ‘ i ndepende ntanal y s i s ’ of the empi r i cal j us t i fi cat i ons and del i ber at i ve undert aki ngs thatl ed t o a part i cul arG ui del i ne. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - R eye s , 5 8 9 F .3 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. A g u ila r-Hu e rta , 576 F. 3d 365, 368 ( 7th C i r . 2009) ( “[A j udge] s houl d nothave t o del ve17

i nt o the hi s t oryof a gui del i ne s o t hathe ca n s at i s fyhi m s el f thatthe pr oces s thatpr oduced it w a s a d e q u a te to p ro d u c e a g o o d g u id e lin e .”); U n itedS ta tes v . D u a rte , 569 F. 3d 528, 5 3 0 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (“ K i m br ough does notfor ce di s tr i ctorappel l at e court s i nt o a pi ece - by - pi ece anal y s i s of the empi r i cal gr oundi ng behi nd eac h partof the s ent enci ng g u id e lin e s.” ). T h e re f

o re , reg a rd les s o f

th e m e rits o f

L e a k e ’s c laim , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t e rr , m u c h le s s a b u s e its d is c re tio n , in a p p lyin g th e G u id e lin e e n h a n c e m e n t a s w ri tte n . I I I . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence e n te re d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt .