FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 5, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13979 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 46 -C R -C -E U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J E R R Y S C O T T M I N O R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Ju n e 5, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J e rry S c ottM i norappe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s f orm a nuf a c tur i ng2

m e tha m phe t a m i ne , 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , us i ng a f i r e a rm i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a drug tr a f f ic k in g c r im e , 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , a n du s in g a d e s tru c tiv e d e v ic e in furthera nce of a drug tra ff i cki ng cr i m e, 18 U . S . C . §§ 92 1(a) (4)( A ), 92 4(c) (1)( B )( i i ). I. M in o ra r g u e s th a t th e J a n u a ry 4 , 2 0 0 5 , s e a r c h o f th e c u r tila g e o f

h is p r o p e r ty w a s a n unc ons t i tut i ona l ge ne r a l s e a r c h uns uppor t e d by pr obabl e c a us e , a nd th e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . D u r in g th is s e a r c h, a pol i c e of

f i c e rdi s c ove r e d a ba g of m e tha m phe t a m i ne l a y i ng ne a rthe po rc h o f M i no r’ s tra i l erand, behi nd a s m al l barn, a propane cyl i nd erthathad b ee n used t o st ore a nh ydrous am m on i a. T hi s e vi dence w as used t o o bt ai n a se ar ch w a rr a ntf orM i nor ’ s r e s i de nc e , w he r e f ur the re vi de nc e w a s l oc a t e d. W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s unde ra m i xe d s t a nda r d of r e v ie w , r e v ie w in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o ra n d its ap p l i cat i o n o f th e l aw t o th o se fact s de no vo . U n ite d S ta te s v . G il , 204 F . 3d 1347, 1350 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . I n M a r y la n d v . B u ie th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld tha t“ a s a n i nc i de ntt o the a rr e s tthe of f i c e r s c oul d, a s a pr e c a ut i ona ry m a tt e ra nd w i tho utprob abl e c ause or re as on abl e s uspi ci on , l oo k i n cl oset s a nd other s pace s i m m e di a t e l y a dj oi ni ng the pl a c e of a rr e s tf r om w hi c h a n a tt a c k c oul d be3

i m m e di a t e l y l a unc he d. ” 494 U . S . 325, 334, 110 S . C t . 1093, 1098, 108 L . E d. 2d 276 ( 1990) . F ur the rm or e , “ the C our te xpl a i ne d tha tthe of f i c e r s m a y go be y ond tha tt o s w e e p a n a r e a tha ta r e a s onabl y prude ntof f i c e rbe l i e ve s , ba s e d on art i cu l ab l e fact s, h arb o rs an i n d i v i d u al p o si n g a d an g er t o th o se o n th e arrest sc ene. ” U

ni te d State s v . B e r v aldi , 226 F . 3d 1256, 1268 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( di s c us s i ng B u ie ) . T he i ntrus i on ont o M i nor ’ s pr ope r ty oc c urr e d a s pa r tof a j us t i f i e d pr ot e c t i ve sw ee p i nci dentt o the arre stof D ani el M roz’ s. W hi l e c on du ct i ng survei l l ance , p o lic e o f f ic e r s h a d o b s e rv e d M r o z o n M in o r ’s p r o p e r ty , a lo n g w ith M in o r , L uci nd a H arri son, and a m an l at eri dent i fi ed as W es l eyM ea do w s, Jr . T he offi ce rs m ov ed i n t o serve arre stw arra nt s on M i no r, M roz, and H arri son w hen they appe a r e d t o be pr e pa r i ng t o f l e e . M i nora nd H a rr i s on s uc c e e de d i n f l e e i ng the pr ope r ty , butM r oz w a s a rr e s t e d. A tthi s t i m e , the pol i c e w e r e una w a r e of M e a d o w s ’s lo c a tio n , b u t k n e w th a t h e h a d f ir e d s h o ts a t o f

f ic e r s e a r lie rth a t d a y . F ur the r , pol i c e ha d i nf

orm a t i on tha tM i norm a y ha ve pl a c e d booby - tr aps a r ound hi s property. T hese ar e a rt i cul abl e f ac t s upo n w hi ch a r ea sonabl y prudentpo l i ce o ff icerco u ldre ly u p o n to b eliev e th at th e a re a— in clu d in g M in o r’s c u r tila g e — m ig h t h a rb o ra n in d iv id u a l p o s in g a d a n g e rto th e o f f ic e r s . Se e B e r v aldi , 22 6 F . 3d at12 68 . W hi l e M i no r quest i on s the si ncer i ty of the po l i ce4

offi ce rs ’ as se rt i on s thatthey a ctual l y bel i eved M ea do w s w as a threa t , the di stri ct c o u r t’s f in d in g o f f a c t to th e c o n tr a ry w a s n o t c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . M in o r ’s F o u r th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w e r e notvi ol a t e d w he n the pol i c e , i n the c our s e of c onduc t i ng the pr ot e c t i ve s w e e p, di s c ove r e d the m e tha m phe t a m i ne a nd pr opa ne c y l i nde rl y i ng in p la in v ie w in M in o r ’s y a r d . Se e U ni te d State s v . H

r om ada , 49 F . 3d 685, 690 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d e n y in g M r o z ’s m o tio n to su p p ress. II . M in o ra ls o a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is c o n v i c t i o n s b y a j u ry . T h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f

th e e v i d e n c e i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w th a twe r e v i e w de no vo . U

ni ted Stat es v. Kel l er , 9 1 6 F .2 d 6 2 8 , 6 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . H o w ev er, i n th e co u rse o f th i s rev i ew , w e “ v i ew [] th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st fa vo rabl e t o the go vernm ent , w i th al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s a nd cr edi bi l i ty c ho i ce s m ade i n the go vernm ent ’ s f avor. ” I d. “ In order t o u ph ol d the l ow ercourt ’ s deni al of the j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l a nd the j ury ' s gui l ty ve r di c t , thi s c our tne e d onl y f i nd tha ta r e a s onabl e f

a c t f i nde rc oul d c onc l ude tha tthe e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he s the defe nd ant ’ s gui l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” I d. T he r e w a s s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s uppor tM i nor ’ s c onvi c t i ons . M i nor c o n f e s s e d to m a n u f

a c tu r in g m e th a m p h e ta m in e a n d to u s in g f ir e a rm s to p r o te c t h is5

drug op er at i on . A s t o the charge of usi ng a des truct i ve devi ce i n furthera nce of a drug -tra ff

i cki ng offe nse, the go vernm entre l i ed up on the t es t i m on y of E dw ar d E uge ne H ol m e s , w ho t e s t i f i e d tha the a nd M i norm a nuf a c tur e d m e tha m phe t a m i ne to g e th e ra n d th a t th e y u s e d f ir e a rm s to p r o te c t th e ird ru g m a n u f a c tu r in g o p e r a tio n . E ven i f H ol m es ’ s t es t i m on y had been the on l y e vi dence, the un corr ob orat ed t e s t i m ony of

a n a c c om pl i c e i s s uf

f i c i e ntt o s uppor ta c onvi c t i on s o l ong a s i ti s not o n its f a c e in c r e d ib le o ro th e rw is e in s u b s ta n tia l. U n i ted S ta tes v. L eQ u i re , 943 F . 2d 15 54 , 15 62 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). H ol m es ’ s i nabi l i ty t o sayexac t l y w hen b etw ee n 2000 a nd 2002 he be ga n m a nuf a c tur i ng m e tha m phe t a m i ne w i th M i nordoe s not r e n d e rh is te s tim o n y in c r e d ib le o ro th e rw is e in s u b s ta n tia l. Se e id. (“ F or a w i tne s s ’ s t e s t i m ony t o be i nc r e di bl e ori ns ubs t a nt i a l on i t s f a c e , i tm us tbe t es t i m on y a s t o fac t s that[the w i tness ] ph ys i ca l l y c ou l d n othave po ss i bl y observed o re v e n ts th a t c o u ld n o t h a v e o c c u rr e d u n d e rth e la w s o f n a tu r e .” ) ( a lte r a tio n in ori gi nal ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). H ol m es t es t i fi ed thatM i no r had carri ed a d yn am i t e b o m b i n o rd er t o “ scare p eo p l e o ff” w h o m i g h to th erw i se a tte m p t to in te r f

e r e w ith th e d ru g m a n u f a c tu r in g . T h e ju ry w a s e n title d to c r e d it H ol m e s ’ s t e s t i m ony , a nd w e do noti ntrude on s uc h a de c i s i on. See U ni ted Stat es v . C alde r on , 127 F . 3d 1314, 1325 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( s t a t i ng tha ti ti s the e xc l us i ve prov i nce of the j ury t o d et erm i ne w hether aw i tness i s c re di bl e) .6

H e r e , i n a d d i t i o n t o H o l me s ’ s t e s t i mo n y , th e p o l i c e f o u n d a d y n a mi t e b o mb i n M i no r’ s r es i dence al on g w i th o ther m at er i al s thatM i no r had confess ed w er e us e d i n hi s drug m a nuf

a c tur i ng ope r a t i on. F ur the r , a n A T F a ge ntt e s t i f i e d tha tthe bo m b w as desi gn ed as a w eapo n and w as 10 t o 2 0 t i m es l ar ger than w as nece ss ary f o rth e p u rp o s e M in o rc la im e d h e in te n d e d th e b o m b

— d e s tr o y in g b e a v e rd a m s . A c c or di ngl y , the r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

orthe j ury t o f

i nd M i norgui l ty of usi ng a des truct i ve devi ce i n furthera nce of a drug-tra ff i cki ng cr i m e. II I. F i na l l y , M i nora r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n i t s f i ndi ng of the qua nt i ty of

drugs f orw hi c h he w a s r e s pons i bl e . M i norc ont e nds tha tthe drug qu ant i ty f

i nd i ng w as base d o n the broadestre adi ng of H ol m es ’ s t es t i m on y, w hi ch w as i ncon si st entand u nrel i abl e. T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e t e rm i n a t i o n o f d ru g q u a n t i ty i s a f

i n d i n g o f f a c tth a twe r e v ie w f o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v. R odri

gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 96 (11th C i r. 2005) . “ W he n a de f

e nda ntobj e c t s t o a f

a c tua l f i ndi ng tha ti s us e d i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s gui de l i ne s e nt e nc e , s uc h a s drug a m ount , the gove rnm e ntbe a r s the bur de n of es t abl i shi ng the di sput ed fa ctby a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence. ” I d. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n h ol di ng M i no r r es po nsi bl e f or ov er 1. 5 ki l ogr a m s of

m e tha m phe t a m i ne . “ W he r e the r e i s no drug s e i z ur e orthe7

a m o u n t s e iz e d d o e s n o t r e f le c t th e s c a le o f

th e o f f e n s e , th e c o u r t s h a ll ap p r o x im a te the qua nt i ty of

the c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e . ” U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1 c m t . n. 12. F u r th e rm o r e , “[ i]n e s tim a tin g th e q u a n tity o f d ru g s a ttr ib u tab le to a d e f e n d a n t, a c our tm a y ba s e i t s c om put a t i on on e vi de nc e s how i ng the a ve r a ge f r e que nc y a nd am ou ntof a def

endant ’ s drug sal es ov era gi ven p er i od of t i m e. ” U ni ted Stat es v. Frazi er , 89 F . 3d 1501, 1506 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . “ T hus , s e nt e nc i ng m a y be ba s e d on f a i r , a c c ur a t e , a nd c ons e rva t i ve e s t i m a t e s of the qua nt i ty of

drugs a ttr i but abl e t o a defe nd ant . ” R odri

gu ez , 398 F . 3d a t1296 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). T h e P r e s e n te n c e I n v e s tig a tio n R e p o r t r e c o m m e n d e d h o ld in g M in o rliab le f or4. 16 ki l ogr a m s of

m e tha m phe t a m i ne , ba s e d on H ol m e s ’ s t e s t i m ony tha tM i nor had p rodu ce d 1 0 g ra m s percook , 2 t o 3 t i m es per w ee k, ov erfour ye ar s. H ow ever , even usi ng a m ore c on se rvat i ve es t i m at e, the evi dence i s c l ea r thatM i no r w as r e s p o n s ib le f

o rw e ll in e x c e s s o f

1 .5 k ilo g r a m s o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e . B o th H ol m e s ’ s t e s t i m ony a nd M i nor ’ s c onf e s s i on a gr e e tha tM i norpr oduc e d a tl e a s t10 gram s of m etham ph et am i ne per “ cook i ng ” s es si on . F or 20 02 and 2 00 3, even a s s um i ng M i norc ooke d onl y onc e a w e e k, a t10 gr a m s pe rc ooki ng s e s s i on he w oul d ha ve y i e l de d a t ot a l outputof 1. 04 ki l ogr a m s of

m e tha m phe t a m i ne . M i nor hi m se l f c on fe ss ed t o h avi ng “ cook ed” app roxi m at el y 58 t i m es i n 2 00 4, w hi ch8

w ou l d h ave y i el ded 0 . 58 ki l og ra m s of m etham ph et am i ne for thatye ar . T hu s, even a ve ry c ons e rva t i ve e s t i m a t e of M i nor ’ s pr oduc t i on f

orthe y e a r s 2002–2004 i s 1. 62 k ilo g r a m s o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e . T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin fi nd i ng thatM i no r w as re spon si bl e f or ov er1. 5 k i l og ra m s of m etham ph et am i ne. A f t e rc a r e f ul c ons i de r a t i on of

the br i e f s , a nd thor ough r e vi e w of the r e c or d, w e f i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i rm M i nor ’ s c onvi c t i ons a nd se nt ence . AF F I RME D.