FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 3, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble W. Harold Albritton, III , United States District Judg e for the Middle District * of Alaba ma, sitting by

designation. [ 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- 14458

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 8 0 1 9 3 - C R - DT KH 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 R O B E R T O D E L G A D O , 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 3, 2007) B ef ore A N D E R S O N and P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and A L B R IT T O N , D i stri ct * Judg e. P E R C U R I A M:2

R obe rt o D e l ga do appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e of 360 m onths of i m pr i s onm e ntf

orpos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm a nd a m m uni t i on by ac onvi c t e d f e l on, p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e , a n d c a rry in g af ir e a rm d u r in g a n d in r e l a t i on t o adrug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e . 18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) & 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( I ) ; 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1). D el gado ar gu es that(1) there w as no prob abl e c ause t o sup po rt th e tr a f f ic s to p th a t le d to h is a rr e s t a n d th e s e a r c h o f h is v e h ic le ; ( 2 ) th e r e is i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s upporthi s c onvi c t i on f orc a rry i ng af

i r e a rm “ dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o” adrug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e ; and ( 3) the c our ts houl d ha ve i ns truc t e d the j u ry o n th e l esser i n cl u d ed o ffen se o f si m p l e p o ssessi o n o f co cai n e. D el g ad o al so a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d w he n i tde ni e d hi m ar e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of re spon si bi l i ty, se e U ni t ed S t at es S ent enci ng G ui del i nes § 3E 1. 1 (N ov . 20 05 ), erroneou sl y c l as si fi ed hi m as a c ar ee r off ender, se e i d. § 4 A 1. 2, and i m po se d an unr e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e . W e di s c us s e a c h a r gum e nti n turn a nd a f f i rm the conv i ct i on s and se nt ence . T he a rr e s t i ng of

f i c e rha d pr obabl e c aus e t o s t op D e l ga do’ s c a rbe c aus e he ha d r e a s on t o be l i e ve a tl e a s ttw o tr a f f i c vi ol a t i ons — i l l e ga l w i ndow t i nt i ng a nd uni l l um i na t e d l i c e ns e t a g— ha d oc c urr e d. W hr e n v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 517 U . S . 806, 810, 116 S . C t . 1769, 1772 ( 1996) . B e c aus e pr obabl e c aus e e xi s t e d t o s t op the vehi cl e, the offi ce r l aw ful l y order ed D el gado ou tof the ca r, confi sc at ed the fi re arm3

D e l ga do c a rr i e d i n pl a i n vi e w , i nve s t i ga t e d D e l ga do’ s dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e , a nd pe r f orm e d apr ot e c t i ve s e a r c h of both dr i ve ra nd ve hi c l e . O hi o v. R obi ne tt e , 519 U . S . 38–39, 117 S . C t . 417 ( 1996) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P ur c e l l , 236 F . 3d 1274, 1 2 7 7

– 7 8 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrw h e n it d e n ie d D e lg a d o ’s m o tio n to su p p ress. D e lg a d o ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e r e is 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 onvi c t i ons f

orc a rry i ng af

i r e a rm “ dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o” adrug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e a l s o f

a i l s . W e r e vi e w de novo the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e s uppor t i ng a c r i m i na l c onvi c t i on a nd vi e w the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D i a z , 248 F . 3d 1065, 1084 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T he e vi de nc e s ugge s t e d tha tthe f i r e a rm a tl e a s tha d “ the pot e nt i a l of f a c i l i t a t i ng” the d ru g tr a f f ic k in g o f f e n s e b e c au s e it w a s lo a d e d , c lo s e to th e c o c a in e , a n d r e a d ily ac ce ss i bl e t o D el gado . U ni t ed S t at es v. T i m m on s, 28 3 F . 3d 12 46 , 12 51 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). D el gado ar gu es for the fi rs tt i m e i n h i s r epl y bri ef thatthe di stri ctcourt erro n eo u sl y d en i ed h i s req u estfo r a j u ry i n stru ct i o n o n th e l esser i n cl u d ed o ffen se o f s im p le p o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e . “ U nd erthe l aw of thi s C i rc ui t , an i ss ue no tra i se d i n a party’ s i ni t i al appel l at e bri ef i s c on si dere d w ai ved, and the party i s prohi bi t ed f r om r a i s i ng the i s s ue l a t e ri n the appe a l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i l ve s tr i , 409 F . 3d4

1 3 1 1 , 1 3 3 8 n .1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A s ar e s u lt, D e lg a d o w a iv e d th is a r g u m e n t. D el gado ’ s argum ent s abo utse nt enci ng al so fa i l . W e r evi ew the di stri ct c our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s de novo and i t s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs f orc l e a re rr or , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J or di , 418 F . 3d 1212, 1214 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , a nd w e r e vi e w as e nt e nc e f

orr e a s onabl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). F i rs t , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rrw hen i tdet erm i ned th a t D e lg a d o w a s n o t e n title d to ar e d u c tio n f o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility be c aus e D e l ga do putthe gove rnm e ntt o i t s bur de n of pr oof both be f or e a nd dur i ng tr i a l . U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1 c m t . n. 2; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 127 F . 3d 987, 9 8 9 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ( e n b a n c ) . S ec on d, the di stri ctcourtw as corr ec tt o cl as si fyD el gado as a c ar ee r offe nd er . A cc ordi ng t o sec t i on 4A 1. 2 o f the G ui del i nes, “ [p] ri or se nt ence s i m pos e d i n unr e l a t e d c a s e s a r e t o be c ount e d s e pa r a t e l y . ” U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 2. T he G ui del i nes C om m ent ary s t at es : “ P ri or se nt ence s are no tconsi dere d rel at ed i f they w e r e f o ro f f e n s e s th a t w e r e s e p a r a te d b y a n in te rv e n in g a rr e s t . . . .” U .S .S .G . § 4A 1. 2 cm t . n. 3. D el gado w as arre st ed for the fi rs toffe nse i n January19 95 before he com m i tt ed the se cond offe nse i n A pri l 19 95 , so the se cond offe nse w as an i nt erveni ng arre st . U ni t ed S t at es v. H un t er , 32 3 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 22 –2 3 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). T he di stri ctcourtw as corr ec tt o con cl ud e thatthe tw o p ri or se nt ence s w er e5

un re l at ed and sent ence d D el gado as a c ar ee r off ender. T h ir d , D e lg a d o ’s s e n te n c e o f 3 6 0 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t w a s r e a s o n ab le . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc ons i de r e d pe rm i s s i bl e s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s , s t a t e d i t s r e a s ons f or the pa r t i c ul a rs e nt e nc e on the r e c or d, a nd s e nt e nc e d D e l ga do a tthe l ow e nd of the G u i d el i n es ran g e. S ee W i l l i am s, 4 5 6 F . 3 d 1 3 5 3 , 1 3 6 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ); T al l ey, 431 F . 3d a t787–88. D e l ga do c a nnote s t abl i s h tha thi s s e nt e nc e f a i l s t o f ur the rthe s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s o f

s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . D el gado ’ s c on vi ct i on s and se nt ence , there fore , ar e A FFI R M ED .