# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 37 17

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Tira n R od ez Ca st eel , als o k no wn as Tiran R. Cas te el

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 27 07

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Tira n R od ez Ca st eel , als o k no wn as Tiran R. Cas te el

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Co un ci l Bl uf fs

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry 16 , 20 13
Fi le d: Ju ne 21 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Se pa ra te j ur ie s co nv ic te d Tira n Ro de z Cas te el (Cas te el ) of (1 ) ca rj ac kin g, usi ng

or carr y in g a fir earm in rel at io n to a vi ol en t c r i me, ob st ru ct in g jus ti ce, an d wit ne ss

ta m pe rin g in th e fir st tri al ; a n d ( 2 ) two co un ts of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a

fir earm in th e se co nd

. Afte r th e fir st tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Cas te el to 31 9 1

m on th s im

pr is on m en t fo r th e fir st fo ur co nv ic ti on s. At a se pa rat e se nt en ci ng aft er th e

se co nd tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Cas te el to 63 m on th s fo r each of th e fir earm s

co un ts

, to be se rv ed co nc ur ren tl y wit h each ot he r an d Cas te el ’s fo ur ot he r co un ts of

co nv ic ti on . Cas te el ap pe al s, an d we a ffi rm

.

I. BACKGRO UND

A. Fac ts

On Sep te m

be r 1 1

, 2 00 8, at ap pr ox im at el y 11 :3 0 p.m ., Darl en e Eit zen , a

76 -y ear- ol d wid ow, was awak e an d al on e in he r Io wa farm ho us e whe n two gu nm en , la te r de te rm in ed to be Cas te el an d hi s s o n Dev an Cas te el (co ll ect iv el y , Cas te el s)

, 2

fo rced th ei r way in to Eit zen ’s ho m e an d ro bb ed he r. Dev an he ld Eit zen in a ch ai r at

gu np oi nt whi le Cas te el sea rch ed th e h ou se for va lu ab le s.

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt W

. Prat t, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

W e affi rm ed Dev an ’s co nv ic ti on s in Uni te d St at es v. Cas te el

, 66 3 F.3 d 10 13

, 2

10 15 , 10 22 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

-2

-Eit zen su sp ect ed th e ro bb ers were res po ns ib le fo r a Ju ly 27

, 20 08 bu rg la ry of

pa rt of he r de ceas ed hu sb an d’s co in co ll ect io n be cau se th ey se em ed fam il ia r wit h he r
ho us e an d th e co in co ll ect io n. In ve st ig at or s lat er learn ed th at in th e da y s fo ll owi ng

th e Ju ly 20 08 bu rg la ry th e Cas te el s so ld m or e th an $1 0,0 00 wor th of co in s at a co in

sh op in St. J os ep h, M is so ur i.

The Cas te el s’ arm ed ro bb ery of Eit zen la st ed ab ou t an ho ur

. Eit zen sp en t m os t

of th e ho ur at gu np oi nt

. Befo re the Cas te el s left

, Dev an twi ce warned Eit zen no t to

m ov e fro m he r ch ai r be cau se so m eo ne wou ld be watc hi ng he r. Afte r th e ro bb ers le ft,

Eit zen di d no t le av e th e ch ai r fo r ab ou t fo rty-fiv e m in ut es to an ho ur be cau se sh e

“ was sca red th at th ey

were o ut th ere a nd m ay

ev en sh oo t [h er].”

Onc e sh e fel t sa fe en ou gh to m ov e, Eit zen tri ed to cal l fo r he lp

, bu t th e Cas te el s

ha d cu t th e te le ph on e li ne s. Eit zen la te r di sc ov ered he r cel l ph on e in a cu p of wate r.

Eit zen lo ok ed ou t th e win do w an d l earn ed th e Cas te el s h ad st ol en he r car

. W it h no

ot he r way to su m

m on he lp

, Eit zen walk ed in th e rai n t o a n ei gh bo rin g farm ho us e
whe re sh e cal le d th e lo cal sh eri ff to rep or t t h e r o b b e r y

. W he n Dep ut y Ja ke Daly

arri ve d at th e ne ig hb or ’s h ou se at ap pr ox im at el y 1: 30 a.m . o n Sep te m be r 12 , 2 00 8,

he fou nd Eit zen fri gh te ne d a nd cry in g.

The ro bb ery in ve st ig at io n qu ic kl y fo cu se d on th e C a s t e e l s

. Late r in th e

m or ni ng on Sep te m

be r 12 , Cas te el , a co nv ic te d felo n, pu rch as ed two fir earm s fr om Sp eci al Age nt Pau l W hi te

, who

, un rel at ed to th e ro bb ery in ve st ig at io n, was wor ki ng

un de rco ve r fo r th e f

ed eral Bu reau of Alco ho l, Tob acco , Fi rear m s an d Exp lo si ve s (ATF). Dev an pl aced th e fir earm s in th e ba ck se at of th e Cas te el s’ gr een 19 96 Po nt ia c

Bo nn ev il le

.

Sh or tl y th erea fte r, ATF of fic ers arre st ed Cas te el fo r be in g a fel on in po ss es si on

of a fir earm an d D e v a n fo r ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e fir earm pu rch as e. Afte r th e

Cas te el s were in cu st od y , ATF Age nt Tul ly Kes sl er p ho to gr ap he d a nd se arch ed th e

-3

-Po nt ia c Bo nn ev il le in ci de nt to th e arre st s. In ad di ti on to th e two fir earm s Cas te el ha d

jus t pu rch as ed , Ag en t Kes sl er di sc ov ered co in s in a b an k b ag an d co in bo x. Age nt

Kes sl er se iz ed th e fir earm s, bu t di d n o t r e t r i e ve th e co in s at th at ti m e be cau se th ey

were n ot rel at ed to th e fi rear m s i nv es ti ga ti on

.

Age nt Kes sl er as ke d Io wa St at e Troo pe r Jo hn Hit ch co ck

, who was as si st in g
wit h th e un de rco ve r op erat i on , whe th er an y ro bb eri es ha d be en rep or te d. Upo n
le arn in g of th e Eit zen ro bb ery, la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers se cu red th e Bo nn ev il le an d

ob ta in ed a se arch warr a n t f o r th e car. Fu rth er in ve st ig at io n ti ed th e co in s to th e

Eit zen rob be ry

.

A su bs eq ue nt se arch of th e ho us e th e Cas te el s sh ared wit h Cas te el ’s gi rlf rie nd

, Ann a Dawn Hut t, rev eal ed ad di ti on al ro bb ery ev id en ce, in cl ud in g m or e co in s; a m ap

of fic ers de sc rib ed as a “ ba ck way ” to Eit zen ’s ho us e th ro ug h fa rm fie ld s; co m

pu te r

ev id en ce of in t e rn et se arch es ab ou t th e Eit zen s an d rare co in s; an d an al l-t erra in

ve hi cl e (ATV) wit h b ur gl ary to ol s an d fr es h v eg et at io n o n i t.

The ro bb ery in ve st ig at io n al so rev eal e d C a st eel ha d recr ui te d ot he rs to ta ke

pa rt in th e ro bb ery. Nath an W il co xs on , Hut t’s so n, te st ifi ed Cas te el recr ui te d hi m to

ro b Eit zen , an d W il co xs on ev en to ok pa rt in a “ dr y ru n” wit h th e Cas te el s be fo re th e

ro bb ery. W il co xs on wen t wit h th e Cas te el s to Eit zen ’s farm on e ni gh t

, bu t th ey
ab or te d th e ro bb ery be cau se it was to o la te to carr y ou t Cas te el ’s pl an , whi ch req ui red

Eit zen to be awak e.

W il co xs on te s t i f

i e d Cas te el in st ru ct ed hi m “ [a]fter th e do or was ki ck ed in
[Wilco xs on ] was su pp os ed to ru n to [Eit zen ’s] ch ai r an d h o l d he r do wn whi le th e

ot he r pe rs on wen t up st ai rs an d g ot th e co in s.” If Eit zen res is te d, Wilc ox so n was to

do “ [a]nythi ng in [h is ] po wer” to m ak e he r co m pl y , in cl ud in g “ [p ]ist ol -wh ip he r, hi t

he r.” In at te m

pt i n g to recr ui t Tim ot hy Bl an k to tra ve l wit h Cas te el by ATV to a
ho us e whe re th ey co ul d ro b th e res id e n t s of th ei r go ld at gu np oi nt

, Cas te el warn ed

-4

-Bl an k th e ro bb ers m ig ht ha ve to ki ll th ei r vi ct im s if th e ro bb ers us ed each ot he r’s

na m es or t he vi ct im s o th erwi se reco gn iz ed th em

.

Afte r hi s arre st

, Cas te e l s o ug ht W il co xs on ’s he lp in pr ev en ti ng Eit zen fro m

t e s t ifyin g. W hi le awai ti ng tri al

, Cas te el m ad e ph on e cal ls an d wro te le tt e r s t o

W il co xs on th at W il co xs on un de rs to od to m ean Cas te el wan te d W il co xs on to ki ll or

ha rm Eit zen to pre ve nt he r fro m tes ti fy in g a ga in st Cas te el or, a lt ern at iv el y , arran ge

fo r so m eo ne el se to “ ta ke care of bu si ne ss [Cas te el ’s] way” s o Ei t z e n wou ld no t

“ sh ow up on th e st an d.” The go ve rn m en t in tro du ced tra ns cri pt s of th e c a l l s a nd

co pi es of th e le tt ers at tri al in su pp or t of W il co xs on ’s te st im on y

. Cas te el ’s cel lm at e,

Ant ho ny Fo rm aro , te st ifi ed Cas te el sp ok e wit h hi m ab ou t arra ng in g to ha ve Eit zen

“ el im in at ed fro m

ex is te nc e o n t hi s ea rth .”

B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

On Feb ru ary 19

, 20 09

, a gr an d jury ch arg ed th e Cas te el s in a ni ne -co un t th ird

su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t. C o u n t s 1 a n d 3 ch arg ed Cas te el wit h be in g a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm , in v i o l a t i o n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( a)(2 ), an d 2.

Co un t 1 rel at ed to Cas te el ’s pu rch as e of a W in ch es te r 12 -g au ge sh ot gu n at a ga rag e

sa le ; Co un t 3 rel at ed to Cas te el ’s pu rch as e o f t h e two fir earm s fro m Sp eci al Age nt

W hi te

. Co un t 2 ch arg ed Deva n wi th kn owi ng ly tran sf erri ng a fir earm to a fel on , in

vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( d) an d 9 24 (a)( 2)

.

Co un t 4 ch arg ed Cas te el an d Dev an wit h carjac ki ng , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 21 19 an d 2 . Cou nt s 5 an d 7 res pe ct iv el y ch arg ed Cas te el an d Dev an wit h u si ng

or carr y in g a fir earm an d br an di sh in g th at fir earm in rel at i o n t o t h e v io le nt fed eral

cri m es of carjac ki ng an d ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i ) an d (ii ).

Co un t 6 ch arg ed th e Cas te el s wit h affe ct in g co m m erce by ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n of 18

U

. S

. C

. § § 19 51 an d 2. Co un t 8 ch arg ed Cas te el wit h ob st ru ct io n or at te m pt ed

ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 15 03

, an d Co un t 9 ch arg ed Cas te el

-5

-wit h ta m

pe rin g wit h a wit ne ss by at te m pt in g to ki ll

, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1 51 2( a)(1 )(A).

Befo re tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t pa rti al ly gr an te d Cas te el ’s m o t i o n to se ve r th e

fi r earm s ch arg es , fin di ng th e ev id en ce rel at ed to Cas te el ’s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on

wou ld crea te a “ hi gh ris k of pr ejud ic e” as to th e rem ai ni ng co un ts

. The di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed Cas te el ’s m ot io ns to su pp res s ev id en ce se iz ed fro m th e Bo nn ev il le an d to

ex cl ud e ev id en ce re la te d t o t he earl ie r ro bb ery of Eit zen ’s res id en ce.

On Nov em

be r 20

, 20 09

, th e jury co nv ic te d Cas te el of al l fo ur co un ts su bm it te d

ag ai ns t hi m in th e fir st tri al

. Cas te el fil ed po st -tr ia l m ot io ns , whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed

.

Befo re se nt en ci ng , Cas te el was twi ce ev al ua te d by Dr. Dan Ro ge rs , a cl in ic al

ps y ch ol og is t who ha d pr ev io us ly fo un d Cas te el in co m pe te nt t o s t a n d tri al on frau d

ch arg es in 20 04

. In 20 10 an d 20 11

, Dr. Ro ge rs co nc lu d e d C a s te el su ffer ed fro m

pa ran oi d sc hi zo ph ren ia wit h de pr es si on , de m en ti a, an d m en ta l ret ard a t i o n

. Dr.

R o ge rs op in ed Cas te el was in co m pe te nt

, an d un li ke ly to ha ve hi s co m pe te nc e

res to red

.

On Ja nu ary 3, 20 11

, Cas te el m ov ed fo r a c o mp e t e n c y he ari ng pu rs ua nt to

18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (a). On th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n, th e di st ric t co ur t or de red a m en ta l

ev al ua ti on pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § § 4 2 4 1 an d 42 47

. Beg in ni ng in Apr il 20 11

, Dr.

Ro na ld Nieb erd in g, a fo ren si c ps y ch ol og is t wit h th e Uni te d St at es Dep art m en t of

Ju st ic e, ob se rv ed Cas te el on a ne arl y d a i l y b a s i s fo r si x to ei gh t week s, freq ue nt ly

in te ract in g wit h hi m

. Dr. Nieb erd i ng co nc lu de d Cas te el su ffer ed fro m “ m il d

s ym pt om s of an un de rlyin g Sch iz oa ffec ti ve Dis or de r,” bu t “ ap pe ar[e d] t o m ai n t a i n

a n a c c u rat e fact ua l an d rat io na l un de rs ta nd in g of hi s cu rren t le ga l cas e” a n d

“ ap pe ar[e d] cap ab le of co ns ul ti ng wit h, an d as si st in g co un se l at th e” ti m e of

ev al ua ti on

.

-6

-On Sep te m be r 14

, 20 11

, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld a co m pe te nc y he ari ng at whi ch

Dr. Ro ge rs , Dr. Nieb erd in g, an d Dr. Lore n Ols on , a ps y ch ia tri st

, te st ifi ed

. Dr. Ro ge rs

an d Dr. Ni eb erd in g each tes ti fie d c on si st en tl y wit h t he ir r ep or ts . Dr. Olso n d id no t

op in e as to Cas te el ’s co m pe te nc y

. Dr. Ols on te st ifi ed Dr. Ro ge rs ’s an d Dr.

Nieb e r d i ng ’s di ag no se s se em ed su pp or te d by th ei r te st in g an d th at th e di ag no st ic

d iff eren ce in th is cas e be twee n sc hi zo ph ren ia an d sc hi zo affe ct iv e di so rd er w a s

m in im al

.

A f te r th e he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed Cas te el su ffer ed fro m so me

fo rm of m en ta l il ln e s s , b u t co nc lu de d Cas te el was co m pe te nt to pr oc eed wit h

se nt en ci ng

. See 18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (d ). In reac hi ng th at co nc lu si on , th e di st ric t co ur t

fo und D r. Nieb erd in g’s de te rm in at io n of co m pe te nc e m or e cred ib le th an Dr. Ro ge rs ’s

co nt rary de te rm in at io n. The di st ric t co ur t al so de ni ed Cas te el ’s req ue st to

ret ro act iv el y de cl are Cas te el un fit to st an d tri al

. On Nov em be r 22

, 20 11

, th e di st ric t

co ur t se nt en ced Cas te el to 31 9 m on th s im pr is on m en t an d 5 y ears su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

On Feb ru ary 29

, 20 12

, aft er a two -d ay tri al

, a se pa rat e jury co nv ic te d Cas te el

of two co un ts of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

Cas te el ’s pr o se m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

. On Ju ly 11

, 20 12

, th e di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ced Cas te el to 63 m on th s on each of th os e co un ts to ru n co nc ur ren tl y wit h each

ot h e r a n d wit h Cas te el ’s 31 9- m on th se nt en ce fo r hi s ot he r co un ts of co nv ic ti on

. Cas te el ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es

. 3

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Competenc y

Cas te el ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s co m pe te nc y ru li ng s. “ The co nv ic ti on of

an in co m pe te nt pe rs on is a vi ol at io n o f du e pr oc es s.” Uni te d Stat es v. Ri ck ert , 68 5

W e h av e ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. 3

-7

-F

. 3 d 7 6 0

, 7 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ti ng Pat e v. Ro bi ns on , 3 83 U.S. 3 75 , 3 78 (1 96 6) )

.

“ [A] de fen da nt m

us t be co m

pe te nt at a l l st ag es of th e pr os ecu ti on , in cl ud in g

se nt en ci ng .” Id

. A de fen da nt is co m pe te nt to st an d tri al or face se nt en ci ng “ if he ‘has

su ffi ci en t pr es en t ab il it y to co ns ul t wit h hi s la wy er wit h a reas on ab le de gr ee of

ra t i o n a l u nd ers ta nd in g’ an d ‘has a rat io na l as well as fact ua l un de rs ta nd in g of th e

pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t h im .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Du sk y v. Uni te d St at es , 36 2 U.S. 4 02 , 40 2
(1 96 0) (pe r cu ria m )).

Sect io n 42 41 (a) “ di rect s th e di st ric t co ur t to gr an t a m ot io n for a co m pe te nc y
he ari ng whe n ‘ th ere is reas on ab le cau se to be li ev e th at th e de fen da nt m ay pr es en tl y
be su ffer in g from a m en ta l di se as e or de fect ren de rin g hi m m en ta ll y in co m pe te nt to

th e ex te nt th at he is un ab le to un d e r s ta nd th e na tu re an d co ns eq ue nc es of th e

pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t hi m or to as si st pr op erl y in hi s de fen se .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng 18 U.S.C.
§ 42 41 (a))

. “ The Co ns ti tu ti on al so req ui res an ad eq ua te he ari ng if th ere is su ffi ci en t

do ub t ab ou t th e accu se d’s co m pe te nc e.” Id

. “ In or de r to mak e a d e t e r m in at io n of

co m pe te nc y , th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou l d c on si de r th e be ha vi or , de m ean or , an d pr io r

ps y ch ia tri c hi st or y of th e de fen da nt .” Uni te d St at es v. Turn er, 64 4 F.3 d 71 3, 72 1 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ).

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s “ de ci si on no t to or de r a co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on

or ho ld a co m

pe te nc y he ari ng ” fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n, id

. at 72 3, an d it s “ fin di ng

of co m pe te nc y fo r cl ear erro r,” Uni te d St at es v. Kid erl en , 56 9 F.3 d 35 8, 36 3 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ). See al so In di an a v. Edwar ds

, 55 4 U.S. 16 4, 17 7 (2 00 8) (rec og ni zi ng “ th e tri al
jud ge

. . . wil l o f

t e n p r o v e be st ab le to m ak e m or e fin e-t un ed m en ta l cap aci ty

de ci si on s, ta il or ed to th e in di vi du al iz ed ci rcu m st an ces of a pa rti cu la r de fen da nt ”).

Im po rta nt l y, “ no t ev ery m an ife st at io n of m en ta l il ln es s de m on st rat es in co m pe te nc e.” Vog t v. Uni te d St at es , 88 F.3 d 58 7, 59 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (in te rn al m ark s om it te d)

. Tha t a de fen da nt su ffer s fro m a m en ta l
de fic ie nc y or de m on st rat es “ bi zarr e, vo la ti l e , an d irr at io na l be ha vi or ”
do es no t n eces sa ril y m ak e hi m in co m pe te nt to st an d tri al . Id. (i nt ern al

-8

-m ark s om it te d)

. A de fen da nt ’s co m pe te nc y is no t st at ic an d m ay ch an ge

ov er ev en a sh or t pe rio d of ti m e. See Ly on s v. Lue bb ers , 40 3 F.3 d 58 5,
5 93 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (n ot in g th at a di st ric t co ur t m us t rem ai n al e r t t o ch an gi ng ci rcu m st an ces th at m ay in di cat e th at a de fen da nt who was

co m pe te nt at t he co m

m en cem en t o f tr ia l h as be co m e in co m pe te nt ).

Uni te d S ta te s v . Ghan e, 59 3 F .3d 77 5, 7 79 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

1. Retro ac tiv e Deter m in at io n
Afte r hi s co nv ic ti on in th e fi rs t t ria l b ut be fo re s en te nc in g, Ca st eel req ue st ed

th at th e d i s t r i c t c ou rt m ak e a ret ro act iv e de te rm in at io n of Cas te el ’s co m pe te nc y at

tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t “ de cl in e[d ] to m ak e a ret ro act iv e de t e r mi na ti on reg ard in g [Cas te el ’s] co m

pe te nc y to ha ve st oo d tri al ,” qu es ti on in g th e co ur t’s aut ho rit y un de r

18 U.S.C. § 4 24 1 a nd Fed . R. C rim. P. 33 (b )(2 ). The d is tri ct co ur t al so de te rm in ed

th e ci rcu m st a n c e s i n Cas te el ’s cas e di d no t warra nt a ret ro act iv e co m pe te nc y
de te rm in at io n. See Sp eed y v. W y ric k, 70 2 F.2 d 72 3, 72 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ) (s ta ti ng “ th e

te st fo r de te rm in in g whe th er a tri al co ur t sh ou ld su a sp on te o r d er a co m pe te nc y
he ari ng ” u n d e r t h e r ul e of Pat e); Hark in s v. W y ric k, 55 2 F.2 d 13 08 , 1 31 1 (8 th Ci r.

19 77 ) (ex pl ai ni ng a po st -co nv ic ti on ev al ua ti on of a de fen da nt ’s co m pe te nc y “ is th e

pr op er rem ed y fo r wro ng fu l de ni al of a pr et ria l [co m p e te nc y ] he ari ng ” whe n “ a

m ean in gf ul he ari ng

. . . is st il l po ss ib le ”). Cas te el co nt en ds “ th e co ur t be lo w erro red
[s ic ] in fai li ng to ad dr es s whe th er Cast eel was m en ta ll y co m pe te nt du rin g hi s tri al .”

W e d is ag ree.

Eve n if we as su m e th e di st ric t co u r t h a d t h e au th or it y to gr an t Cas te el a

ret ro act iv e co m

pe te nc y de te rm in at io n m or e th an a y ear aft er jud gm en t, Cas te el fai ls

to pe rs ua de us th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d rev ers ib le erro r in de nyin g hi s req ue st ed

rel ie f. In arg ui ng a ret ro act iv e co m pe te nc y de te rm in at io n was ne ces sa ry , C as te el ’s

co unse l st at es , “ Co un se l be li efs [s ic ] th at th e Gov ern m en t, an d pe rh ap s th e Co ur t, wil l

rel y pa rti al ly on Cas te el ’s pr et ria l co nd uc t an d tri al de m ean or to as s es s hi s

co m pe te nc y ,” bu t Cas te el fai ls to po in t to an y th in g in Cas te el ’s pr et ria l co nd uc t an d

-9

-tri al de m ean or th at wou ld ha ve ale rte d t he di st ric t co ur t t o a ny com pe te nc y is su e at

th e ti m e of tri al

. At or al arg um en t, Cas te el

, th ro ug h co un se l, co nc ed ed Cas te el m ad e

no irr at io na l or in co m

pr eh en si bl e co m

m en ts no r ha d an y ou tb ur st s be fo re th e di st ric t

co ur t.

Rel y in g ex cl us iv el y on Dr. Ro ge rs ’s co m pe te nc y h e a r i n g te st im on y , Cas te el

m ai nt ai ns “ [t]he reco rd sh ows he was ne ve r res to red to co m pe te nc e” aft er 20 04

. Bu t

Cas te el ack no wled g e s h e is un ab le to sa y whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t, at th e ti m e of

tri al

, w a s e v en aware of Cas te el ’s 20 04 in co m pe te nc y de te rm in at io n. Cas te el al so ig no res th e ot he r reco rd co m pe te nc y e v id en ce, in cl ud in g “ th e 20 05 co m pe te nc y

res to rat io n ex am in at io n th at de te rm in ed [Cas te el ’s] co m pe te nc y ha d be en res to red ”

an d Dr. Nieb erd in g’s co m pe te nc e de t e r mi n a ti on , whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d

“ co ns is te nt wit h it s own ob se rv at io ns of [Cas te el ]” du rin g an d aft er tri al

. Mi nd fu l of

“ th e di st ric t co ur t’s in st it ut io na l ad va nt ag e ov er th e co ur t of ap pe al s in ev al ua ti ng th e
de m ean or of th e de fen da nt ,” Ri ck ert

, 68 5 F.3 d at 76 7, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t

di d no t ab us e it s di s c r e t io n in de ci di ng Cas te el ’s ci rcu m st an ces di d no t warra nt a

ret ro act iv e co m

pe te nc y de te rm in at io n. See Turn er, 64 4 F.3 d at 72 5- 26 (co nc lu di ng

th e tri al co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in fai l i n g t o or de r a co m pe te nc y he ari ng
de sp it e th e de fen da nt ’s pr io r di ag no si s of pa ran oi d sc hi zo ph ren ia an d “ bi zarr e or

irr at io na l” be ha vi or at t ria l).

2. Fire ar m s T ri al an d Sent enci ng

Cas te el al so co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d in fin di ng hi m co m pe te nt (1 ) to st an d tri al fo r th e fir earm s ch arg es , an d (2 ) at th e ti m e of each se nt en ci ng

. Cas te el ’s cl ai m s ag ai n fal l sh or t. Alt ho ug h he co nt en d s “ [t]he ex pe rt te st im on y

pr es en te d at th e Sep te m

be r 14 co m

pe te nc y he ari ng cl earl y sh owe d th at [Cas te el ]’ s th

m en ta l he al th di so rd ers ha ve no t res ol ve d,” Cas te el ack no wled ge s “ whe th er Tira n

Cas te el la ck s co m

pe te nc y is a cl os e cal l” th at “ m ay hi ng e on th e [d is tri ct co ur t’s] own
ob se rv at io ns .”

-1 0-The di st ri ct co ur t ci te d se ve ral co m pe ll in g reas on s fo r cred it in g

Dr. Nieb erd in g’s co nc lu si on th at Cas te el was co m pe te nt de sp it e hi s m en ta l il ln es s,

rat he r th an Dr. Ro ge rs ’s co nt rary op in io n. Fi rs t, th e d i s t r i c t co ur t qu es ti on ed Dr.

Ro ge rs ’s de te rm in at io n th at Cas te el ’s cu rren t le ve l of co gn it iv e fu nc ti on in g was
si m il ar to wha t it was in 20 04

, de sp it e th e 20 05 ev al ua ti on in di cat in g Cas t e el ’s

co m pe te nc y ha d b een res to red

.

Seco nd

, th e di st ric t co ur t ex pr es se d co nc ern ab ou t “ th e accu racy of so m e [o f]

th e f a c t s r e l i ed up on by Dr. Ro ge rs ” in co nc lu di ng Cas te el di d no t un de rs ta nd th e

pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t hi m

. I n p a r t i cu la r, th e di st ric t co ur t qu es ti on ed Dr. Ro ge rs ’s

su rp ris e t h a t C a st eel , n ot wit hs ta nd in g hi s fam il ia rit y wit h jail s an d pr is on s, di d no t

u n de rs ta nd th at hi s le tt ers ab ou t si le nc in g Eit zen wou ld no t rem ai n pr iv at e. To th e

co nt rary, th e di st ric t cou rt reas on ab ly fo un d Cas te el ’s co de d la ng ua ge in hi s le tt ers ,

“ pr es um ab ly to av oi d de te ct io n,” su pp or te d “ th e ex act op po si te co nc lu si on th an th at

reac he d by Dr. Ro ge rs ” an d de m on st rat ed Cas te el un de rs to od th e pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t

hi m be cau se he so ug ht to eli m in at e Eit zen as a ke y wit ne ss

.

Th i rd

, th e di st ric t co ur t cred it ed Dr. Nieb erd in g’s op in io n be c a u s e

Dr. Nieb erd in g in te ract ed wit h Cas te el m or e freq ue nt ly an d fo r a lo ng er pe rio d th an

Dr. Ro ge rs . Fin al ly, as no te d a bo ve , th e d is tri ct co ur t d et erm in ed Dr. Nieb erd in g’s

de te rm in at io n of co m

pe te nc e was m or e co ns is te nt wit h th e co ur t’s own ob se rv at io ns

of Cas te el ’s be ha vi or du rin g an d aft er tri al

. “ [I]t is ‘certa in ly wit hi n a di st ric t co ur t’s

pr ov in ce to ch oo se on e ex pe rt’s op in io n ov er a c o mp e t in g qu al ifi ed ex pe rt’s

op in io n.’” Uni te d St at es v. DeCo te au , 63 0 F.3 d 10 91

, 10 96 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng
Gha ne , 59 3 F.3 d at 78 1)

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng Cas te el co m pe te nt

to st an d t ria l an d t o p ro ceed wit h s en te nc in g.

B. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence —Fel on in Po ss es si on

On Aug us t 2, 20 08

, Den ni s Cau di ll of Co in

, Io wa, he ld a ga rag e sa le at whi ch

he of fere d a W in ch es te r 12 -g au ge sh ot gu n fo r sa le

. The Cas te el s st op pe d at th e sa le

,

-1 1-an d Cas te el pi ck ed up th e sh ot gu n, “ lo ok ed it ov er,” an d “ m ad e su re it wor ke d.” On

A u g u s t 10

, 20 08

, th e Cas te el s ret ur ne d to Cau di ll ’s res id en ce un an no un ced

, an d

Cas te el ne go ti at ed th e pu rch as e of th e sh ot gu n fo r $3 00 c a s h

. A fte r Cas te el

ex ch an ge d th e cas h fo r th e sh ot gu n, Cas te el ha nd ed th e gu n to D e v a n , w h o pu t th e

gu n in th e car. Cau di ll al so si gn ed a rece ip t Cas te el pr ep ared in di cat in g Cau di ll so ld

th e g un to Deva n.

La t e r t ha t m on th

, Cas te el ne go ti at ed th e sa le of th e sh ot gu n, al on g wit h tw o

ot he r gu ns , to Ri c k y Dean Ri ve rs

. Alt ho ug h Dev an di d no t pa rti ci pa te in th e

nego ti at io ns , Cas te el ad vi se d Ri ve rs th at Ri ve rs ne ed ed to pa y Dev an be cau se Ca ste el

“ was n’t s up po se d t o h av e g un s.”

On Sep te m

be r 1 2

, 20 08

, Sp eci al Age nt W hi te

, res po nd in g to an on li ne
ad ve rti se m en t as pa rt of an un de rco ve r op erat io n, arra ng ed to m eet Cas te el at th e

Am eri ca’s Bes t Valu e In n to se ll Cas te el two fir earm s— a Ru ge r .40 cal ib er pi st ol an d

a Co lt Delt a Eli te 10 m

m pi st ol

. Cas te el ex ch an ge d sev eral e-m ai ls an d ph on e cal ls

wit h of fic ers reg ard in g th e fir earm s. Cas te el , wh o was us in g t h e a l i a s “D on Hut t,”

arri ve d a t t he pa rk in g l ot in th e g reen Po nt ia c Bo nn ev il le dri ve n b y Deva n.

Sp eci al Age nt W hi te sh owe d th e fir earm s to Cas te el to in sp ect

. Cas te el fir st pi ck ed up an d in sp ect ed th e Co lt

, wor ki ng th e sl id e an d rem ov in g an d rep la ci ng th e

m ag azi ne

. Cas te el th en ex am in ed th e Ru ge r. W hi le in sp ect in g th e fir earm s, Cas te el

to ld Sp eci al Age nt W hi te th at th e Cas te el s ha d an ex te ns iv e co ll ect io n an d ha d

rece nt ly pu rch as ed a la rg e nu m be r of gu ns at au ct io n. Afte r i n s p e c t i ng th e gu ns , Cas te el pu ll ed th irt y twen ty-do ll ar bil ls fro m hi s po ck et to co ve r th e $ 60 0 p ur ch as e

pr ic e an d ga ve th e m on ey to Sp eci al Age nt W hi te

. Dev an , who rem ai ne d qu ie t du rin g

th e ne go ti at io ns , to ok th e two fir earm s an d pl aced th em in th e ba ck s e a t o f th e

Bo nn ev il le . Spe ci al Agen t Whi te ’s su pp or t t eam th en arre st ed th e Cas te el s.

-1 2-On Feb ru ary 29

, 20 12

, a jury co nv ic te d Cas te el of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on

of a fir earm as ch arg ed in Co un ts 1 an d 3 of th e in di ct m en t. To co nv i c t Cas te el of

po ss es si ng a fir earm in vi ol at io n of § 92 2( g)

, th e go ve rn m en t ha d to pr ov e be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t (1 ) Cas te el pr ev io us ly w a s “con vi ct ed of a cri m e pu ni sh ab le by a

te rm of im

pr is on m e n t e xc eed in g on e y ear” ; (2 ) Cas te el “ kn owi ng ly po ss es se d a

fir earm [;] an d (3 ) th e fir earm ” Cas te el po ss es se d m ov ed “ in or af f e c t[e d] in te rs ta te

co m m erce .” See Uni te d St at es v. Po rte r, 68 7 F.3 d 91 8, 92 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Cas te el

on ly chal le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce o f fi rear m po ss es si on

.

“ W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , ‘vie win g ev id en ce in th e

li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e go ve rn m en t’s fav or ,

an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at s u p p o rt th e ve rd ic t.’” Uni te d St at es v. Teag ue , 64 6 F.3 d 11 19

, 11 21 -2 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pi wowar , 49 2 F.3 d 95 3, 95 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). W e rev ers e “ o n l y i f no reas on ab le jury co ul d

ha ve fo un d gu il t be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d St at es v. Herb st

, 66 6 F.3 d 50 4,

51 0 (8t h Cir. 20 12 ). “ ‘W he n a su ffi ci en cy arg um en t hi ng es on th e in te rp ret at io n o f

a st at ut e, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s st at ut or y i n t e rp ret at io n de no vo .’ ” Uni te d

St at es v. Re ed

, 66 8 F.3d 97 8, 9 82 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) (qu ot in g Un it ed Sta te s v . Gent ry , 55 5 F .3d 65 9, 6 64 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

On ap pe al

, Ca ste el m ai nt ai ns hi s “ po ss es si on of th e fir earm s al le ge d in co un ts 1

an d 3 was si m

pl y a fle et in g pr e-p ur ch as e ha nd li ng or in sp ect io n th at do es no t ari se [s ic ] to ‘pos se ss io n’ fo r pu rp os es of 18 U.S.C. § 92 [2 ](g).” In Cas te el ’s vi ew, “ [t]he

ev id en ce sh ows , ev en in a li gh t m os t fav or ab l[e ] to th e go ve rn m en t, th at Tira n Cas te el

at m os t m om en ta ril y ha nd le d an d in sp ect ed th e gu ns pr io r to th ei r pu rch as e by hi s so n

Dev an ” an d “ [t]he ATF an d Den ni s Cau di ll ne ve r rel in qu is he d po ss es si on or co nt ro l:

th e fi rear m s wer e m erel y on di sp la y

pri or to pu rch as e.”

“ W e ha ve he ld th at po li ce ob se r v a t i o n of de fen da nt ’s br ie f po ss es si on of a

fir earm is su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on ,” bu t le ft “ op en th e qu es ti on whe th er th e

-1 3-du rat io n o f po ss es si on m ig ht ev er be rel ev an t to a fin di ng of kn owi ng po ss es si on .”

Uni te d S ta te s v . By ers , 60 3 F .3d 50 3, 5 07 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) ; see als o Uni te d S ta te s v

. W rig ht

, 68 2 F.3 d 10 88

, 10 90 -9 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (n ot in g w e ha ve no t ad op te d a

“ tra ns it or y or in no cen t po ss e s s i o n ” de fen se ). Cas te el ’s un du ly na rro w vi ew of

po ss es si on is at od ds wit h th e gr eat weig ht of au th or it y of ot he r ci rcu it s de ci di ng th is

is su e. W e n eed no t d eci de whet he r to joi n t ho se cir cu it s t o re so lv e th is ap pe al

. 4

Cas te el di d no t ob

ject to th e di st ric t co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io n reg ard in g

p os se ss io n or of

fer a se pa rat e in st ru ct io n on hi s “ fle et in g” po ss es si on th e o r y. S e e
Uni te d St at es v. Ali

, 63 F.3 d 71 0, 71 7 n.9 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ Bec au se de fen da nt fai le d

to se ek a pr op er i ns tru ct io n o n h is in no cen t p os se ss io n t he or y , we ne ed no t, an d do

no t, de ci de at th is ti m e whe th er a n ‘inn oc en t reas on s’ de fen se is av ai la bl e un de r

See Uni te d S ta te s v . Mat th ews , 52 0 F .3d 80 6, 81 0 (7 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (d eci di ng 4 pi ck in g up fir earm s for a few seco nd s to in sp ect th em “ fo r th e pu rp os e of arra ng in g

a sa le ” was “ pr eci se ly wha t se ct io n 92 2 was m ean t to pr ev en t” ); Uni te d St at es v. Gil be rt, 43 0 F.3 d 21 5, 21 8 (4 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng § 92 2 ( g ) “i n no way in vi te s in ve st ig at io n in to why th e de fen da nt po ss es se d a fir earm or ho w lo ng th at po ss es si on la st ed ”); Uni te d S t a t es v. Gain es , 29 5 F.3 d 29 3, 30 0 (2 d Ci r. 20 02 ) (co nc lu di ng

ev id en ce sh owi ng th e de fen da nt act ua ll y ho ld in g fi r e a r ms whi le in sp ect in g th em be fo re pu rch as e was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of po ss es sio n “ ho wev er br ie fly it oc cu rred ”);
Uni te d St at es v. Lan e, 26 7 F.3 d 71 5, 71 8 (7 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ Bec au se a de fen da nt can sh oo t a gu n so qu ic kl y an d eas il y on ce he ho ld s it i n h i s h a n ds

, we co nc lu de th at

ev id en ce sh owi ng th at a fel on he ld a gu n is by it se lf a fact or in di cat in g th at th e de fen da nt ha d th e ab il it y to ex erci se di rect co nt ro l ov er th e fir earm .”) (in te rn al m ark s

an d qu ot at io n om it te d) ; Un i t e d S t a t es v. Adk in s, 19 6 F.3 d 11 12

, 11 15 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 99 ) (d is cu ss in g th e “ fle et in g po ss es si on th eo ry ,” bu t fin di ng it di d no t ap pl y )

ov erru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Ch am be rs v. Uni te d St at es , 55 5 U.S. 12 2 (2 00 9) ; Uni te d St at es v. Park er, 56 6 F.2 d 13 04

, 13 06 (5 th Ci r. 19 78 ) ( e x p la in in g th e fact

“ [t]ha t po ss es si on is m om en ta ry is im m at eri al ” un de r 26 U.S.C. § 58 61 be cau se “ [t]he

st at ut e is writ te n in ab so lu te ter m s” ); b ut cf. Uni te d S ta te s v . Mas on , 23 3 F .3d 61 9,
62 4 (D.C. Ci r. 20 00 ) (rec og ni zi ng an in no cen t po ss es si on de fen se to a § 9 2 2 (g )(1 )
ch arg e pr ov id ed “ (1 ) th e fir earm was at ta in ed in no cen tl y an d he ld wit h no il li ci t

pu rp os e an d (2 ) po ss es si on of t he fir earm was t ran si to ry ”).

-1 4-§ 92 2( g) .”). And th e di st ric t co ur t pe rm it te d Cas te el to arg ue to th e jury th at

“ to uc h i n g , i n s pe ct in g an d ne go ti at in g a pr ic e” fo r th e fir earm s in co nn ect io n wit h

Cas te el ’s bu si ne ss of bu y in g an d se ll in g us ed go od s wit h Dev an was no t po ss es si on

. Cf. Uni te d St at es v. St ov er, 82 2 F.2 d 48

, 50 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (d eci di ng th e de fen da nt

w a iv ed an y cl ai m of erro r whe n th e di st ric t co ur t pr ov is io na ll y pe rm i t t e d t h e
de fen da nt to arg ue in no cen t po ss es si on , bu t th e de fen da nt m ad e no su ch arg um en t).

Afte r he ari ng Cas te el ’s arg um en t, th e jury reject ed Cas te e l ’s de fen se

. W ha te ve r th e co nt ou rs of an y in no cen t or tra ns it or y po ss es si on de fen se to co nv ic ti on

un de r § 92 2( g) th at m ay ex is t, th e jury was no t req ui red to acce pt Cas te el ’s t h e o r y ,

es pe ci al ly un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e. The ev id en c e a d d uc ed at tri al

, vi ewed “ ‘in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t,’” al on g wit h “ ‘all reas on ab le

in fere nc es th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t,’” wo u l d p e r mit a reas on ab le jury to co nc lu de

Cas te el ’s po ss es si on of al l th ree fir earm s was ne it he r fle et in g no r in no cen t. Teag ue , 64 6 F.3 d at 11 21 -2 2 (q uo ti ng Pi wowar , 49 2 F.3 d at 95 5)

. The jury he ard te st im on y
th at Cas te el lo cat ed fir e a r ms fo r pu rch as e, lo ok ed th em ov er, pi ck ed th em up , in sp ect ed th em , m ad e su re th ey wor ke d, ne go ti at ed a pr ic e, an d pa id fo r th e fir earm s
be fo re pa ss in g th em to hi s ad ul t so n Dev an , pr es um ab ly to be ad de d to th ei r ex te ns iv e

co ll ect io n. The jury reas on ab ly fo un d Cas te el po ss es se d th e fir earm s as req ui red fo r

co nv ic ti on un de r § 9 22 (g ).

C. Supp res si on of E vi denc e

Afte r of fic ers arre st ed th e Cas te el s in th e m ot el pa rk in g l o t, Age nt Kes sl er ph ot og rap he d an d se arch ed th e Bo nn ev il le in ci de nt to th e arre st s. In ad di ti on to th e

two fir earm s, Age nt Kes sl er di sc ov ered co in s i n a b a n k ba g an d co in bo x. Age nt

Kes sl er se iz ed th e fir earm s, bu t di d no t ret rie ve th e co in s at t h a t t i me be cau se th ey

were no t rel at ed to hi s fir earm s in ve st ig at io n. Afte r le arn in g o f th e Eit zen ro bb ery

fro m Tr o op er Hit ch co ck

, la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers se cu red th e Bo nn ev il le an d

ob ta in ed a se arch warran t fo r th e car

.

-1 5-Cas te el arg ue s “ [t]he in it ia l se arch of th e Bo nn ev il le au to m ob il e vi ol at ed [h is ]

Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht to be free fro m un reas on ab le se arch an d se iz ur e.” See Katz

v. Uni te d St at es , 389 U

. S. 347

, 35 7 (1 96 7) (“ [S]earch es co nd uc te d ou ts id e th e jud ic ia l

pr oc es s, wit ho ut pr io r ap pr ov al by jud ge or m ag is tra te

, are pe r se un reas on ab le un de r

th e Fo u r t h Am en dm en t— su bjec t on ly to a few sp eci fic al ly es ta bl is he d an d

well -d el in eat ed ex cep ti on s.”) (fo ot no te om it te d)

. Cas te el arg ue s th e se arch was

im pr op er un de r Ariz on a v . Gant , 55 6 U.S. 3 32 (20 09 ), in whi ch th e Su pr em e Co ur t

he ld th e fo ll owi ng :

Po li ce m ay se arch a ve hi cl e in ci de nt to a rece nt oc cu pa nt ’s arre st

on ly if th e arre st ee is wit hi n reac h i n g di st an ce of th e pa ss en ge r

co m pa rtment a t t he ti m e of th e se arch or it is reas on ab le to be li ev e th e

ve hi cl e co nt ai ns ev id en ce of th e of fen se of arre st

. W he n th es e jus ti fic at io ns are ab se nt

, a se arch of an arre st ee’s ve hi cl e wil l be

un reas on ab le un le ss po li ce ob ta in a warra nt or sh ow th at a n ot he r

ex cep ti on to th e warra nt req ui rem en t ap pl ie s.

Gan t, 55 6 U.S. at 35 1. Acco rd in g to Cas te el

, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve

su pp res se d th e ev id en ce of th e ro bb ery be c a u s e t he Cas te el s were ha nd cu ffed an d

se cu red away fro m th e Bo nn ev il le an d “ [t]he re was no reas on fo r th e ag en ts of fic ers
be li ev e [s ic ] ev id en ce of th e cri m e of arre st

, po ss es si on of a fir earm as a fel on , wou ld

be fou nd wit hi n t he ve hi cl e” o nc e ag en ts sei zed th e fi rear m s.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Cas te el ’s m ot io n to su pp res s, fin di ng Age nt Kes sl er

ha d pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e ba nk ba g an d co in bo x fo r pa pe rwo rk ev id en ci ng th e
cri m e of be in g a fel on in po ss es si o n of a fir earm

. “ W he n rev ie win g th e de ni al of a

m ot io n to su pp res s, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d

th e le ga l qu es ti on of whe th er th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t was vi ol at ed de no vo .” Uni te d

St at es v. Sal am as in a, 61 5 F.3 d 92 5, 92 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). W e rev ers e on ly if th e de ni al

“ ‘is un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id e n c e , b a se d on an erro ne ou s in te rp ret at io n of

ap pl ic ab le l a w , o r , b a s e d on th e en ti re reco rd , i t is cl ear a m is ta ke was m ad e.’” Id

.

-1 6-(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Harp er, 46 6 F.3 d 63 4, 64 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 6) ). The di st ric t

co ur t d id no t er r in fin di ng “ no co ns ti tu ti on al de fect ” wit h re sp ect to th e se arch

.

W e ag ree wit h th e go ve rn m en t th at “ [t]he ci rcu m st an ces of th is cri m e pr ov id ed

‘reaso n to be li ev e’ th ere was ad di ti on al ev id en ce of th e cri m e to be fo un d in [th e

Bo nn ev il le ], ev en aft er th e fir earm s C a s t eel bo ug ht fro m ATF ag en ts ha d be en

r e m ov ed fro m th e car.” See Gan t, 55 6 U.S. at 34 4. Age nt Kes sl er te st ifi e d h e

se arch ed th e b a n k b a g an d co in bo x fo r am m un it io n an d pa pe rwo rk rel at ed to th e

fir earm s in ve st ig at io n. As th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv e d

, th at pa pe rwo rk co ul d ha ve

in cl ud ed pr in to ut s of Cas te el ’s in te rn et co m m un ic at io ns wit h th e ATF, a m ap to th e

m eet in g lo cat io n, or th e rece ip t bo ok Cas te el fil le d ou t w h e n h e pu rch as ed th e

fir earm s fro m Sp eci al Age nt W hi te —al l po te nt ia l ev id en ce of th e cri m e o f a r r e s t

. Th e of fic ers ’ reas on ab le be li ef th at th ere was ad di ti on al ev id en ce of th e cri m e of

arre st in th e car

su pp or te d t he ir s earc h o f th e b ox an d b ag co nt ai ni ng th e co in s.

The of fi ce rs w er e al so pe rm it te d to rel y on ou r th en -b in di ng pr e-Gan t pr eced en t

ho ld in g th at whe n a po li ce of fic er “ ‘has m ad e a la wfu l cu st od ia l arr es t of th e

oc cu pa nt of an au to m ob il e, he m ay , as a co nt em po ran eo us i n c i de nt of th at arre st

,

se arch th e pa ss en ge r co m pa rtment of th at au to m ob il e’” ev en “ whe re th e arre st ee ha s

ex it ed th e ve hi cl e an d ha s be en ha nd cu ffed an d pl aced in a po li ce of fic er’s pa tro l

car,” Uni te d St at es v. Hras ky, 45 3 F.3 d 10 99

, 11 00 -0 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng New

Yor k v

. B e l to n, 45 3 U.S. 45 4, 45 9- 60 (1 98 1)

, an d ap pl y in g Bel to n’s lo ng st an di ng

“ br ig ht -li ne ” ru le ). See Dav is v. Unit ed St at es , 56 4 U.S.

__ _, __ _, 13 1 S. Ct

. 24 19

, 24 29 (20 11 ) (u ph ol di ng th e ad m is si on of e vi de nc e ob ta in ed pu rs ua nt to a p re-Ga nt

se arch of an au to m ob il e in ci de nt to th e arre st of it s o c c u p a nt s in rel ia nc e up on

pr e-Gan t pr eced en t au th or iz in g su ch a se arch ); Uni te d St at es v. Tsch ach er, 68 7 F.3 d

92 3, 9 33 (8t h Ci r. 20 12 ). “ [S]earch es co nd uc te d in ob jecti ve ly rea so na bl e rel ia nc e

on bi nd in g ap pe ll at e pr eced en t are no t su bjec t to th e ex cl us io na ry ru le .” Dav is

, 56 4

U.S. at

__

_, 13 1 S. Ct

. a t 24 23 -2 4. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed Cas te el ’s

m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

-1 7-D. Sent enci ng

Cas te el co nt en ds “ th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d two se nt en ci ng erro rs in fai li ng

to gr ou p al l in di ct ment of fen se s an d in award in g th ree cri m in al hi st or y po in ts fo r

co nv ic ti on s co nt ai ne d i n th e sa m e in di ct m en t as th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on .” In

ad di ti on to de nyin g erro r, th e go ve rn m en t as se rts an y se nt en ci ng erro r was ha rm le ss
be cau se th e di st ric t “ co ur t im po se d th e se nt en ces fro m Cas te el ’s se co nd tri al who ll y

co nc ur ren tl y to th os e fro m hi s firs t tri al ,” le av in g “ no im pa ct on th e ul ti m at e le ng th

of [Cas te el ’s] sen te nc e.”

W e m us t di sr eg ard “ [a]ny erro r, de fect , irre gu la rit y , or va ria nc e th at do es no t

affe ct [Cas te el ’s] su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.” Fed . R . C rim. P. 52 (a). W he n pr es se d at or al

arg um en t, Cas te el co ul d no t art ic ul at e an y ha rm he ha s su ffer ed as a res ul t of th e
di st ric t co ur t’s pu rp or te d se nt en ci ng erro rs th at affe ct s hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. As su ch

,

we se e no co m

pe ll in g reas on to rem an d fo r res en te nc in g. See Uni te d St at es v.

All m on , 50 0 F.3 d 80 0, 80 6- 07 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (fi nd in g no pr ejud ic e to th e
de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s an d no m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce whe re a se nt en ci ng erro r
di d no t i n c reas e th e de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce be y on d co nc ur ren t se nt en ces pr op erl y

im po se d fo r ot he r cri m es ); Uni te d St at es v. Mo y er, 18 2 F.3 d 10 18

, 10 2 3 ( 8 t h C i r

. 19 99 ) (co nc lu di ng an y

sen te nc in g e rro r was ha rm le ss be cau se th e se nt en ces for th e
ch al le ng ed co un ts ran “ co nc ur ren t to

, an d [were ] sh or te r th an ” th e se nt en ces im po se d

fo r ot he r co un ts of c on vi ct io n)

.

E. Othe r Cla ims

Cas te el ’s rem ai ni ng ch al le ng es to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce of carjac ki ng

an d th e ad m is si on of ev id en ce rel at ed to th e Ju ly 27

, 20 08 bu rg la ry are fo recl os ed by

ou r reject io n of id en ti cal cla im s in Dev an ’s d ire ct ap pe al

. See Cas te el , 6 63 F.3 d at

10 19 -2 2. In de ed

, in co nc ed in g ou r op in io n in Cas te el “ sq ua rel y res ol ve d or reject ed ”

hi s rem ai ni ng cl ai m s on th e “ ex act sa m e fact s,” Cas te el ad m it te d at or al arg um en t he

ha d n o n ew arg um en ts , in fo rm at io n, o r fact s fo r th e co ur t t o c on si de r.

-1 8-II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 9-