FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 18, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 12 37 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 07 1- CR-OR L-22 GJK UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHRIS TOPHER SAMUEL CARTER, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 18 , 20 10 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Fo ll owi ng hi s co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of a m m un it io n b y

a co nv ic te d fel on , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( a)(2 ), 92 4( e)(1 ), Ch ris to ph er Sam ue l Ca rte r arg ue s t ha t (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io n t o supp res s al l ev id en ce o bt ai ne d a s a r es ul t o f th e st op an d s earc h o f th e v eh ic le in whi chhe was apa ss en ge r; ( 2) th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on ; an d (3 ) th e g ov ern m en t s ho ul d h av e b eenrequi redto pro ve to th e jury be y on d areas on ab le do ub t h is st atut ory pre di cat e co nv ic ti on s t ha t p ro vi de d t he ba si s fo r hi s Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”) sen te nc in g e nh an cem en t. I. Whe ther the Di st ri ct Co urt E rred in Den yi ng Cart er’s Mot io n to Supp res s On ap pe al , Cart er ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io n to supp res s al l ev id en ce o bt ai ne d a s a r es ul t o f th e tr affi c st op of t he Dod ge Mag nu m inwhi ch he was apa ss en ge r, in cl ud in g alo ad edfir earm fou ndun de r th e fro ntpa ss en ge r se atwher e h e was si tt in g. Inrev ie win g t he de ni al of am ot io n t o s up pr es s, “ we rev ie w th e d is tri ct co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d i ts leg al co nc lu si on s de no vo ” an d a re no t re st ric te d t o t he reco rdm ad e atth e supp res si on he ari ng , bu t m ay rev ie w th e en ti re re co rd , in cl ud in g t ria l t es ti m on y . Uni te d S ta te s v . Newso m e, 47 5 F .3d 12 21 , 12 23 -2 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 7) . “ [A]ll fa ct s ar e co ns tru edinth e li gh t m os t

2fav or ab le to th e p rev ai li ng pa rty bel ow.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . “ ‘T he

in di vi du al ch al le ng in g t he sea rch be ars th e b ur de ns of p ro of an d p ers ua si on .’ ” Id. at12 24 (qu ot in g Uni te d S ta te s v . Coo pe r, 13 3 F .3d13 94 , 13 98 (11 th Cir . 19 98 )). Abs en t a d em on st rat io n o f cl ear e rro r, we are b ou ndby the cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns m ad e b y

th e fac t fi nd er b ecau se he or s he pe rs on al ly obs erv edth e te st im on y an d was th us ina be tt er p os it io n t han t he rev ie win g c ou rt t o a ss es s t he witne ss es ’ cred ib il it y . Uni te d S ta te s v . Ram ire z-Ch il el , 28 9 F .3d74 4, 7 49 (11 th Ci r. 20 02 ). Cart er fi rs t ar gu es th atth e tr affi c st op was u nl awfu l b ecau se Depu ty Mi ch ael DeGraw la ck edpro babl e cau se to in it ia te th e tr affi c st op as t he re was no ba si s t o b el ie ve th atLake is haJo hn so n, the dri ve r of th e Dod ge , hadco m

m it te d a tra ffi c in frac ti on by cut ti ng off th e driv er o f a p ic k- up tru ck . Howev er, the di st ric t co urt cr ed it edDeGraw’s te st im on y th atsh e d idso ov er Ms . Jo hn so n's tes ti m on y th atsh e d idno t re cal l cu tt in g a nyon e o ff an d a ls o n ot edth atFlo rid a la w pro hi bi ts dr iv ers fro m

ch an gi ng lan es un le ss "the m ov e can be co m pl et el y m ad e wit h s afet y an d wi th ou t i nt erfe rin g wi th th e sa fe o pe rat io n o f an y ve hi cl e ap pr oa ch in g fr om th e sa m e d ire ct io n." (ci ti ng Fla . Sta t. § 31 6.0 85 (2 ). Bec au se Cart er h as no t p oi nt edto an y fact s i n t he reco rdsh owi ng th atth e di st ric t co urt's de ci si on to cred itDeGraw's tes ti m on y was c le arl y

erro ne ou s, thi s 3Co urt i s b ou ndby tha t cr ed ib il ity de te rm in at io n. Se e Ram ire z-Ch il el , 28 9 F .3dat 74 9. DeGra w's t es ti m on y est ab li sh edth athe ob se rv edMs . Jo hn so n c omm ita vi ol at io n o f Fl or id a's laws , th us pro vi di ng DeGraw wit h p ro babl e cau se to st op th e ve hi cl e. Ther efo re, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de te rm in in g t ha t the tra ffi c st op di d n otvi ol at e Carte r's Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts . Cart er n ex t ar gu es th athe was u nl awfu ll y de ta in edbe y on d t he pe rio d t ha t was ne ces sa ry

to pro ces s M s. J oh ns on ’s tra ffi c in frac ti on warn in g b ecau se (a) M s. Jo hn so n t es ti fie d t ha t the de pu ti es ha d fi ni sh edpro ces si ng he r tr affi c warn in g a t th e p oi ntwhen th ey

be ga n que st io ni ng th e p as se ng ers inth e Dod ge ab ou t the ir id en ti ti es , (b) th e d is tri ctco urt erredincred it in g Dep ut y Yanc y Bo wli ng ’s in co ns is te nttes ti m on y

ab ou t wh ere h e was st an di ng inrel at io n t o t he Dod ge when he ob se rv edCart er re m ov e a l arg e b la ckob ject f ro m hi s wai stba ndan d p la ce i t un de r th e se at , and(c) Ca rte r ha d arig htto refu se to tel l the de pu ti es hi s n am e du rin g t he co ns en su al en co un te r. Bas edon th is reco rd , we can no t s ay th e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y

erre d i n cred it in g Off

ic ers DeGraw’s an d C arri uo lo ’s tes ti m on y th atDeGraw h adno t fin is he d p ro ces si ng Ms . Jo hn so n’s traff ic warn in g a t the ti m e th e o th er d ep ut ie s be ga n que st io ni ng Cart er, d es pi te Ms . Jo hn so n’s t es ti m on y to th e co nt rary. See Ram ire z-Ch il el , 28 9 F .3dat 7 49 . The d is tri ctco urt al so pe rm is si bl y cred it ed 4Carr iu ol o’s t es ti m on y th atth e co nt in ue d d et en ti on of C art er was ba se d o n t he in ve st ig at io n o f Carte r’s po ss ib le sea tb el t l aw vi ol at io n. Ca rte r ha s n otsh own th at th is cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n was cle arl y erro ne ou s. Fu rth er, Bo wli ng ’s and Carr iu ol o’s o bs erv at io ns of C art er’s s us pi ci ou s re ach in g fr om hi s wai stba ndto hi de anob

ject und er the sea t p ro vi de d re as on ab le , art ic ul ab le su sp ic io n t o ju st ify th e d et en ti on be cau se itwas re as on ab le forth e d ep ut ie s t o b el ie ve th atCart er was en ga gi ng inil le ga l co nduc t an d tha t o ffi cer s afet y was a t ri sk . Cart er furth er co nt en ds th atth ere was no ba si s fo r th e d ep ut ie s t o b el ie ve th atot he r il le ga l ac ti vi ty w as afo otth atwou ldjus ti fy a pa t-d own sea rch for weap on s u nd er Terry

v. Oh io , 39 2 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct . 18 68 , 20 L.Ed.2d88 9 (1 96 8) . Altho ug h b ot h Dep uty

Bo wli ng tes ti fie d t ha t h e o bs erv edCart er t ak e a l arg e b la ck ob ject f ro m hi s wai stba ndan d p la ce i t u nd er the fro ntpa ss en ge r se atan d Dep ut y Ch ris to ph er Ca rri uo lo tes ti fie d t ha t h e al so saw C art er re ach un de r th e se at , Cart er co nt en ds th atat t he po in t wh enhe was a sk edto st ep ou t o f th e car , th e d ep ut ie s la ck eda ba si s t o b el ie ve th athe was a rm edan d d an ge ro us . Fin al ly, Cart er co nt en ds th atth e se iz ur e o f hi s wal le t dur in g t he pa t-d own search was u nl awfu l. Pri orto th e se arch , Cart er h adto ldDepu ty Carriu ol o, wh enhe was p rep ari ng a ci ta ti on forfai li ng to wear a s eatbe lt , th athe di d n otha ve id en ti fic at io n o n h is pe rs on . Howev er, dur in g t he pa t-d own sea rch forweap on s, Ca rte r to ldDepu ty 5Carr iu ol o t ha t the it em inhi s p oc ke t was hi s wal le t tha t co nt ai ne d h is id en ti fic at io n. Fl or id a la w pro hi bi ts a pe rs on who ha s b een lawf ul ly det ai ne d b y la w enf or cem en t fr om

gi vi ng a fal se na m e o r ot he rwis e fal se ly ide nt ifyin g h im se lf to th e la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer. Fl a. St at . § 9 01 .36 (1 ). W e fi ndno erro r un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces forth e se iz ur e o f Carte r’s wall et . Acco rd in gl y , Cart er’s Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts were n otvi ol at edbe cau se (a) t he de pu ti es ha d alawf ul ba si s t o s to p t he ve hi cl e, (b ) Carte r was no t un la wfu ll y

de ta in ed , (c) the de pu ti es ha d re as on ab le , art ic ul ab le su sp ic io n jus ti fy in g t he pa t-d ownsea rch of C art er’s p ers on , and(d) th e d ep ut ie s d idno t ex ceedth e p erm is si bl e sc op e o f th e p at -d own search . There fo re, the di st ric t co urt th eref or e d idno t err in de nyin g C art er’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s. II . Whe ther Suffi ci ent E vi denc e Supp or ts Cart er’s Conv ic tio n fo r Pos se ss io n o f Am m uni tio n by a Co nv ic ted Fel on Cart er n ex t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al be cau se th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l was in su ffi ci en t t o sh ow b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t h e kno win gl y po ss es se d t he am

m un it io n i n qu es ti on . Cart er es se nt ia ll y arg ue s t ha t the witne ss es ag ai ns t h im were n ot cred ib le . W e fi ndth is arg um en t u na va il in g.

6To the ex te ntth ata de fen da nt ’s arg um en t d ep en ds up on ch al le ng es to th e

witne ss es ’ cred ib il it y , th e jury has ex cl us iv e p ro vi nc e o ve r th atde te rm in at io n a nd we m ay no t re vi si t thi s que st io n wh enth e wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y is no t i nc red ib le as a m atte r of

law. “ Fo r te st im on y

of ago ve rn m en t wi tn es s t o b e in cred ib le as a m at te r of law, i t m us t b e unb el ie vabl e o n i ts face .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cal de ro n, 1 27 F.3 d 1 31 4, 1 32 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io n o mit te d) . It m us t b e te st im on y as t o “ fact s tha t the witne ss ph y si cal ly cou ldno t h av e p os si bl y ob se rv ed orev en ts th atco ul d n otha ve oc cu rredun de r th e laws o f na ture.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d b rack et s o m it te d) . Inth is cas e su ffi ci en t ev id en ce was pre se nt edto th e jury to s up po rt t he gu il ty verd ic t. Dep ut y

Bo wli ng tes ti fie d t ha t wh enhe was s ta nd in g app ro xi m at el y th ree f eetfro m th e car , he o bs erv edCart er l iftup hi s s hi rt, re ach in to hi s wais tb an d, re m ov e aneig htto ten -in ch lo ng ob ject t ha t ap pe aredto be wrap pe d i n bl ackclo th , andsh ov e th atob ject u nd er the sea t. Th atob ject turne d o utto be a lo ad edfir earm . Depu ty Bowli ng als o t es ti fie d t ha t wh enhe saw C art er re ach to hi s wai stba ndan d p la ce the ob ject und er the sea t, h e imm ed ia te ly "cal le d t ha t o ut to [Offi cer] Carri uo lo ," an d wh enCart er co nt inue d t o re ach un de r th e se ataft er be in g o rd eredto ex itth e v eh ic le , Bowl in g a ga in ale rte d C arri uo lo to Cart er's act io ns . Carri uo lo co nf

irmed th atas h e was walk in g t o h is squa d c ar t o c he ck

7Cart er's id en ti fic at io n, Bo wli ng was s ta nd in g n ear t he fro ntpa ss en ge r si de of t he

ve hi cl e an d s ho ut edto hi m th atCart er was reac hi ng un de r th e se at . The jury al so he ardtes ti m on y fro m th e b ack se atpa ss en ge r, Fo rd , th atsh e sa w Cart er l ean forwardinhi s s eatwhen a de pu ty w as ou ts id e th e car . Fordals o te st ifi edth atsh e d idno t o wn a g un , th atsh e h adbe eninth e Dod ge at l eas t 5 0 ti m es pri or , hadne ve r se ena gu n o r amm un it io n i n t he Dod ge be fo re tha t n ig ht , an d t ha t n ei th er the own er n or th e driv er o f th e Dod ge own eda gu n o r amm un it io n. Ms . Jo hn so n a ndhe r fat he r li ke wis e te st ifi edth atth ey di d n otown a gu n o r an y

am m un it io n. Mr . Jo hn so n a ls o t es ti fie d t ha t i m m ed ia te ly befo re Ca rte r le ft i n t he Dod ge with M s. J oh ns on an d F or d, h e h adsee n C art er h ol di ng a gu n wrap pe d i n ada rk

clo th . Bas edon th e wit ne ss tes ti m on y an d t he ph y si cal ev id en ce fo un d i n t he Dod ge , we con cl ud e th atth e g ov ern m en t p res en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a jury to c on vi ctCart er o f kn owi ng ly pos se ss in g amm un it io n i n o r affe ct in g i nt ers ta te co m m erce . II I. Whe ther the Go ve rnment Sho ul d Ha ve Been Requi red t o Pro ve to a Ju ry Cart er’s Prio r Con vi cti on s th at Prov id ed the Ba si s fo r the ACCA Sent enci ng Enha ncement Fi na ll y , Cart er ar gu es , forpre se rv at io n p ur po se s, tha t d es pi te th e Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng inApp ren di v. New J ers ey , 53 0 U.S. 4 66 , 47 3, 1 20 S.Ct . 23 48 , 23 54 , 14 7 L.Ed .2d43 5 (2 00 0) , hi s s en te nc e sh ou ldbe ov erturne d b ecau se (1) th e 8go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro ve to th e jury bey on d areas on ab le do ub t h is st atut ory

pr ed ic at e co nv ic ti on s fo r ACCA en ha nc em en t p ur po se s, an d (2 ) th e App ren di ru le th atex cep t fo r th e fac t o f pr io r co nv ic ti on s, the go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve to a jury be y on d areas on ab le do ub t an y factth atin crea se s t he st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e, ha s b eencal le d i nt o que st io n b y so m e m em

be rs of t he Supr em e Co urt. W e rei te rat e th atth e h ol di ng of Al m en da rez- Torr es , 52 3 U.S. at22 7, 1 18 S.Ct . at 1 22 3, tha t a p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on is no t an ele m en t o f th e o ffen se for pu rp os es of t he im

po si ti onof a n e nh an cedsen te nc e, rem ai ns go odlaw af te r App ren di . Uni te d S ta te s v . Can te ll an o, 4 30 F.3d11 42 , 11 47 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). AFFIRMED.

9