N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. KENNETH R

ANDALE DOOR , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30170

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-05126-R B L-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B . Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d Fe brua

ry 4, 2016 Subm itte d M arc h

24, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KOZINSKI, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s. Ke nne th Door a

ppe a ls both the

de nia l of his m otions to suppre ss e vide nc e and his se nte nc e . W e a ffirm Door’ s c onvic tion a

nd de fe r re solution of Door’ s se nte nc e until the

Supre m e C ourt issue s a

de c ision in Mathis v . Unite d State s , No. 15-6092 (U.S. 2016). 

# FIL ED APR 05 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C ir. R . 36-3.1. C onside ring the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s, we c onc lude tha

t Offic e r Doughe rty -Sande rs ha d re a sona b le c a use to se arc h

Door’ s house . Se e W a sh. R e v. C ode § 9.94A.631(1); State v . J ardine z , 338 P.3d 292, 295 (Wa sh. App. 2014) (e quating “re a s ona ble c a use ” with “ re a sona

ble suspic i on” unde r Te rry v . Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). Door a rgue s tha t Joe ’ s tip wa s unre lia

ble , tha t Hanse n’ s se nse tha

t he wa s followe d by Door’ s c ar wa s a m e re hunc h , a

nd tha t the offic e rs’ be lie f that Door wa s hom e but not a nswe ring his door wa s innoc uous.

“ Te rry , howe ve r, pre c lude s this sort of divide -and-c onque r ana ly sis”

— “ t ake n toge the r,” the se obse rvat ions “ ‘ warrante d furthe r inve stiga tion.’ ” Unite d State

s v . Arv izu , 534 U.S. 266, 274 (2002) (quoting Te rry , 392 U.S. a t 22). 2. Door forfe ite d his Miranda c la im by not ra ising it be fore the distric t c ourt’ s de a dline for pre tria l m otions. Se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 12(b)(3)(C ). The e xc e ption in

Unite d State

s v . Vasque

z , 858 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th C ir. 1988), doe s not a pply he re be c a

u s e it is not c le ar that the distric t c ourt re vie we d Door’ s Miranda c la im on the m e rits. Afte r Door c ha lle nge d the a dm ission of his ja il sta te m e nts to Ha

nse n on volunta

rine ss a nd Miranda grounds, the gove rnm e nt solic ite d te s tim ony

a bout whe the r Doughe rty -Sande rs re a d Door his Miranda rights a t Door’ s house , whic h ha d no be aring on theque stion whe the r Hanse n prope rly M irandiz e d

Door at the prison nine te e n da y s la te r. The distric t

c o urt a lso 2re fe rre d to JudgeB ry an’ s e a rlie r finding re ga

rding whe the r Door he ard his Miranda rights from

Doughe rty -Sande rs on the da y of a rre st. In this c onte xt, it is not c le ar that the distric t c o urt’ s ruling “ I will gra nt the volunta

rine ss a nd the Miranda wa ive r” wa s re fe rring to Ha nse n’ s a c tions a

t the ja il. As the Vasque

z e xc e ption doe s not a

pply , we de c line to re vie w the forfe ite d c la i m . 3. Door c ha lle nge s the distric t c o urt’ s c onc lusion tha

t his six prior c onvic tions for se c ond-de g re e burgla ry in W a shington Sta

te we re “ viole nt fe lonie s” unde r 18 U.S.C . § 924(e )(1), m aking him an a rm e d c are e r c rim ina l. The c onc lusion tha

t Door should be

se nte nc e d unde r the Arm e d C are e r C rim ina l Ac t (AC C A) ra ise d Door’ s se nte nc ing guide line s le ve l to 34. B e c a u se the Supre m e C ourt ha s gra

nte d c e rtiora ri in Mathis v . Unite d State s , No. 15-6092 (U.S. 2016), whic h will a ddre ss how fe de ra l c ourts de te rm ine whe the r a prior c onvic tion qua lifie s a s a “ viole nt fe lony ” unde r the AC C A, we de c line to c onside r Door’ s c ha lle nge at this time . Although the gove rnm e nt’ s position ha s c ha nge d during this c a s e , its c ha

nge in position is unde

rsta nda ble in light of our inte

rve ning de c ision in Re ndon v . Holde r , 764 F.3d 1077 (9th C ir. 2014). Rathe r tha n a c c e pt Door’ s re que s t to spe c ulate a bout whe the r the Supre m e C ourt de c ision in Mathis will a ffe c t the outc om e of this c a se , we be lie ve tha t the prude nt c ourse is to wa it for the Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in Mathis . 34. The gove rnm e n t a rgue s tha t e ve n without the

AC C A de te rm ination, Door ha d a

guide line s le ve l of 34 be c a use of e nha

nc e m e nts for posse ssing a de struc tive de vic e , U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(B ), for posse ssing a fire arm in c onne c tion with a

nothe r fe lony

offe nse , U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B ), and for obstruc tion of justic e , U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1. The distric t c o urt did not make any findings of fa c t

re ga rding the s e e nha

nc e m e nts. The de struc tive de vic e e nha nc e m e nt c annot be a

p plie d to Door’ s posse ssion of a se a l bom b. W e have he ld tha

t “ c om m e rc ia l e xplosive s, a

bse nt proof of intent to use suc h c om

pone nts a s a

we a pon, fa i l to qua lify

a s a ‘ d e s truc t ive de vic e ’ within the m e aning of 26 U.S.C . § 5845.” Unite d State s v . Fre dman , 833 F.2d 837, 839 (9th C ir. 1987); se e U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, c m t., a ppl. n.1 (inc orporat ing the sta tutory de finition for “ de struc tive de v ic e ” se t forth in 26 U.S.C . § 5845(f)). So these a l bom b m ight ha

ve be e n vie we d a s a

de struc tive de vic e if inte n de d for use a s a we a pon. B ut the gove rnm e nt ha s ne ve r argue d tha t Door ha d suc h inte nt, a

nd we se e n o e v ide n c e of suc h a n inte nt in there c ord. On this re c ord, the e nha nc e m e nt c annot a pply . R e ga rding the othe r two e nha

nc e m e nts, the distric t c ourt did not make the re quisitefindings for us to de te rm ine whe the r the y

prope rly a

pplie d. Obstruc tion of justic e re quire s proof tha t Door “ willfully

obstruc te d or im

pe de d, or atte m

pte d 4to obstruc t or im pe d e , the a dm inistra

tion of justic e .” U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1. The c onduc t de sc ribe d in thepre se nte nc e re port would ha ve be e n suffic ie nt for suc h a finding on the

the ory tha t Door wa nte d to disc oura ge Ha

nse n from te stify ing a

t tria l . B ut Door dispute d this e vide n c e , a nd the distric t

c o urt did not “

rule on the dispute ” a s re quire d by

Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 32(i)(3)(B ). Fina lly , the re c ord c onta ins e vide nc e “ that pe rm its a n infe re nc e tha

t [the fire arm s] fa c ilita

te d or pote ntia l ly

fa c ilita te d

— i .e . , ha d som e pote ntia l e m bolde ning rolein”

—Door’ s a lle ge d drug a c tivity . Se e Unite d State s v . Gonzale s , 506 F.3d 940, 947 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Unite d State s v . Routon , 25 F.3d 815, 819 (9th C ir. 1994)). B ut the distric t c ourt did not make a finding tha

t Door posse sse d a

fire arm in c o nne c t ion with a

nothe r fe lony offe nse suc h a s se lling drugs. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B ). W ithout the

re quire d fa c tua l findings— both on thee nha

nc e m e nt for obstruc tion of justic e and on thee nha nc e m e nt for posse ssion of a fire arm in c onne c tion with a

nothe r offe n se —

w e c annot c onc lude tha

t the e nha nc e m e nts a pply . Afte r we re solve the AC C A issue onc e Mathis is de c ide d by the Supre m e C ourt, if it is ne c e ssa

ry , we will re m a

n d on the se two se nte nc ing e nha n c e m e nts so that the distric t c ourt c an m ake findings of fa c t tha t e ithe r support or ruleout the e nha nc e m e nts. 55. Door’ s c onvic t ion is AFFIR M ED. W e de fe r re solution of Door’ s se nte nc e pe nding the Supre m e C ourt’ s disposition of M athis v
. Unite d State

s , No. 15-6092 (U.S. 2016). No petitions for re he aring or re he a ring e n ba nc sha ll be e nte rta ine d until weissue a de c ision re ga

rding Door’ s se nte nc e .

6