### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 30981

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. ARC H I E RO Y J ACK SON , J AM ES BERN I S M I DK I FF D efen da n t s - A pp el l an t s

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana
B ef ore G A R Z A , D eM O S S , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . E M ILIO M
. G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg e: A rchi e R oy Jack son and Jam es B erni s M i dk i f f w ere convic t ed of

charges st em m i n g f

rom a conspi racy to m an u fact u re and di st ribu t e m et h am ph et am i n e. Jack son cha l l en ges t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i al of h i s m ot i on t o sup press evi den ce f o und dur i ng a s e ar c h i n a nd a r o und hi s ho m e . M i dki f f c on t en ds t hatt he di st ri ctcourterr ed byi n creasi n g t h e qu an t i t y of drug s at t ribu t able t o hi m f or sen ten ci n g p u rp ose s an dall ow i n g th e g ov ern m en t t o a m en dthe i n d i ctm en t. I J a c k s o n a n dM id k iff w e r e in d ic te db ya fe d e r a l g r a n dju r yfo rth e ir pa rt i ci pa t i on i n a conspir acy t o m an u fact u re an d d i st ribu t e m et h am ph et am i n e. Th ey, al ong w i t h se ver alco -con spi r at or s, ut i l i ze d a num berof r em ot e r ural United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 3, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

2 l oc at i ons i n L oui si ana t o s etup m et ham phet am i ne l abs
. They use d t hes e l abs t o “ c o o k ” me t h a m p h e t a m i n e , wh i c h t h e yl a t e rd i s t r ib u t e d
. I n a d d i t i o n t o t he d r u gcr im e s , b o th m e n w e r e a c c u s e do f k n o w in g lyp o s s e s s in ga fir e a r m in fu rth e ra n ce of a d ru gtra ffi ck in gcr im e inv iola tion of 1 8 U .S .C

. § 9 2 4 (c). M id k iff al so w as c harge d w i t h bei ng a fel on i n pos se ss i on of a f i r ear m i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C. § 9 22 ( g) ( 1)

. Fe de r ala r r e s tw ar r ant s w e r e i s s ue d f o rb o t h m e n. B ef or e J ac kso n w as ar r es t ed, t he s t at e c as e a genti n t he f ede r al i n vest i gati on s ou gh ta search w arran t f or Jack son’ s r esi den ce f rom a st ate c ou rt j udg e . The ag e nt e xe c ut e d an af f i da vi t s upp o r t i ng t he w ar r anta ppl i c at i o n, a nd, b a s e d o n t h e a ff

id a v it , t h e s t a t e c o u r t is s u e d a s e a r c h w a r r a n tfo r J a c k s o n ’s
r e s id e n c e . T h u s, at th e ti m e th e off i cers w en t t o J a ck son ’ s reside n ce, th ey h a dbo th a st ate s earch w arran tan d a federala rres tw arran t
. W h en t h e of f i cers entered Jack son’ s hom e, theyob served h i m p l ace som et h i n g u n der t h e couch on w h i ch h e w as s ittin g . Th ey qu i ckl y arrest ed Ja ckson an d then condu ct ed a sw eep of t h e hom e t o ensu re t h at no one el se w as present. T h ey al so exam i n ed the couch
a n d d is c o v e r e d th a t th e ite m J a c k s o n p la c e d u n d e r it w a s a b a go f m a r iju a n a . T h e of f i cers conti n u ed thei r s earch of t h e resi den ce an d t h e ou t door area
surroun di n g t h e hom e. I n si de the h ou se, t h ey di scovered a loc ked safe. Jackson pr o vi de d t he o f

f i c e r s w i t h t he c o m bi nat i o n t o t he sa fe , i ns i de o f w hi c h t he y f

o und gu n s and som e cr u shed pseu doep h edri n e t ablet s, w h i ch are used t o produ ce m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e . Ou t s i d e t h e h o u s e , t h e yf o u n dc h e m i c a l s a n de qui pm e nt
u sed i n t h e m an u fact u ri n g of m et h am ph et am i n e. B ef ore tria l, Jackson f

i l ed a m ot i on t o sup press t h e evi den ce di scovered dur i ng t he se ar c h of

hi s hom e . The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d t he m o t i o n. Fo l l o w i ng a ju r ytr ia l b o th J a c k s o n a n dM id k iff w e r e co n v ic te do f, in tera lia , con sp i ra cyto di s t r ibut e m e t ham phe t am i ne , e s t ab l i s hm e nto f m anufac t ur i ng o pe r at i o ns , a nd att em pt t o m an u fact u re m et h am ph et am i n e. T h e j u ry i n di cat ed on a speci alj u ry Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

B ecau se J ackson does not challen geh is sentenc e, we limitour di scussionof 1 se nte ncin gto Mi dkiff

. 3 f o r m t h a ti tf

o u n dJ a c k s o n a n dMi d k i f f g u i l t yo f

a c o n s p i r a c yi n v o lv i n g5 0 g r a ms orl es s of

m et ham phet am i ne, bu tn otgu i l t y of a c ons pi r ac y i nvolvi ng 50 t o 5 00 g r a ms o r5 0 0 g r a ms o rmo r e . Mi d k i f f w a s a l s o c o n v i c t e do f t h e f i r e a r ms v io la tio n s . T h e U n i ted S tates P rob a ti on O ff i cer issu ed a p rese n ten ce re p ort ( “P S R ”) att ribu t i n g 1, 318 gram s of m et h am ph et am i n e t o M i dk i f f based on ext rapol ati on f r o m e s t i m at e s pr o vi de d b y c o - c o ns pi r at o r s . M i dki f f f i l e d a n o bj e c t i o n t o t he PSR

“ i n i t s e n t i r e t y , ” a l o n g wi t h t wo o t h e r o b j e c t i o n s t h a t a r e n o t r e l e v a n tt o t he ap pea l
. T h e P robati on O f f i cer respond ed to t h e obj ect i on , an d the di st ri ctcourt
c r e d ite dth e re s p o n s e a s a d e q u a te
. T h e co u r t a d o p te dth e fa c tu a l s ta te m e n ts in t he PSR and f

o und t hat i t r e as o nab l y ad dr e s s e d t he r e l e va nt c o nduc t a nd
ac c ur at e l y r e po r t e d t he a ppl i c ab l e s t at ut o r y s e nt e nc e s . I n a c c o r da nc e w i t h t he Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , t he c o ur ts e nt e nc e d M i dki f f t o 1 68 m o nt hs f

o rt he dr ug c r i m es and 360 m ont hs f ort he gun c r i m es , t o r un co nse c ut ively. 1

II J a ck son arg u es th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt erred w h en i t de n i ed h i s m oti on to suppr es s evi denc e f

ound i n and ar ound hi s hom e dur i ng a s ear c h aut hor i ze d by
a st at e s e ar c h war r ant
. H e c o nt e nds t hatt he a f f i da vi ts upp o r t i ng t he searc h
w ar r antw as b as e d o n i nc o r r e c ta nd i nc o m pl e t e i nf o r m at i o n, t hus r e nde r i ng t he goo d- fai t h exc ept i on t o t he e xc l usi onar y r ul e i nappl i c abl e. H e a l so ar gues t hat t he s e ar c h ca nno tbe j us t i f i e d byt he pr o t e c t ive swee p r ul e b e c aus e m o s to f t he
e v id e n c e w a s fo u n din th e y a r da n dn o t in th e h o u s e its e lf. W e accepta di st ri ct court’ s fact u alf i n di n gs on a m ot i on t o sup press based
on l ive t est i m on y at a s u p p re ssi on hea ri n g “ u n l ess cl earl y erroneou s or i n fl u en ced byan i n corre ct view of th e law
. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. F oy , 28 F. 3d 464, 4 7 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). W h e n re v iew in g th e d istr ict co u rt’s ru li n g , w e w il l “vie w [] Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

On the oneh and, a determin ation that the affidavit is mor e tha n “bare b one s” is 2 relevant todetermininggoo d faith
. See United States v. Cisneros , 11 2 F.3 d12 72, 127 8 (5 th Cir. 1 997) (“An officer mayrely ingoo dfaith o n the validity of awarrant so long as the warrant i s supported bymoreth an a b are bones affidavit.”) (citationan d intern al quotation marks omitt ed)

. On the other , the court states that the affidavit alo ne cannot support the searchan d makes no finding regarding Jackson’s argument that the affidavit was misle adin g an d co ntainedf

als e inform ation . See Franks v. Delaware , 43 8 U .S. 15 4, 1 71

) 72 (197 8) (notin g that whe n defendant has made the requisiteshowingas to falsehood in the affidavit, the court should set toone si de the questionablematerial , an d then determine if there remains suff icient co nte nt in the warr ant aff idavitto supp ort af

in din gof prob ab lec au se); United States v. Sib ley , 44 8 F .3d 7 54, 757(5th Cir . 2006) (notin g that the good-faith exception does not applywhenthe ma gi strate issuing the warrant was misled by information in an affidavit 4 th e facts i n the l i gh t m ost fav o r a b le t o the pr ev a i l i n g p a rty.” Uni t e d S t at e s v. How ard , 1 0 6 F .3 d7 0 , 7 3 ( 5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). O u rr e v ie w o f t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s in te r p r e ta tio n a n da p p lic a tio n o f la w is d e n o v o . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B locker , 1 0 4 F .3d 7 2 0 , 7 2 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). A l th ou gh the pa rti es’br ie fi n g p ri m a ri l y a d d ress es th e g oo d -fa i th excepti on , our exam i n ati on of the record does not i n di cat e t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt b a sed i ts d ecisi on to de n y J a ck son ’ s m oti on to su p p ress on the go od -fa i th excepti on . B ef

ore r u l i n g on t h e m ot i on , t h e di st ri ct court h eard tes t i m on y f rom t h e of f i cer w h o provi ded t h e a ffi da vi tsup porti n g t h e searc h w arran tan d f rom on e of t h e of f i cers w h o condu ct ed the se a rc h
. A f t er heari n g argu m en tf rom c o uns e l , t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts t at e d: [ T ] h e rulin go f the court i s goi n g t o be [t h at] i t ’ s not a ba re bones a ffid a v it. B u t I th in k t h a t if it w e r e b a s e do n th e a ffid a v it a lo n e , it w o u ldb e s u p p r e s s e d
. H o w e v e r , I d o a g r e e w ith th e g o v e r n m e n t in th is p a r tic u la rca s e th a t t h e in e v ita b le d is c o v e r y d o c tr in e w o r k s . I al s o t hi nk t hatyo u’ve go tt he i nde pe nde nts o ur c e v e r i f i c at i o n b y t he of f i cer w h o sees t h e m arij u an a w h en h e com es i n t o t h e resi den ce, an d h e w as a di f

ferent of

f i cer f rom O f f i cer O rt i z, i n an y even t
. So I t hi nk t ho s e t w o do c t r i ne s a l l o w t hi s pa r t i c ul ars e ar c h , tha tt he ite m s s e iz e dt o b e a d m is s ib le , a n ds o th e m o tio n to s u p p r e s s in th is c a s e w ill b e o v e r r r u le do n th a t b a s is
. Bas e d o n t hi s o r alrul i ng, i ti s unc l e arw he t he rt he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t hatt he go o d- fai t h e xc e pt i o n a ppl i e d. 2 Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

th at the aff

iant kn ewor shouldh ave knownwa s f als e)

. Th e in depe n de nt sourc e doctrin e ca se s areapp licab leinthisc ontext b ec au seth e two 3 doctrines “areactuallytwo sides of the sa me coin.” Grosenheider , 20 0 F .3d at 3 28. The Supre m e C ourth as treate d inevitab le discovery as “anextrapolation” of the indepe ndent sourc e doctrin e. See Murray v. U ni te d States , 48 7 U .S. 53 3, 5 39 (198 8) (“ Since the tainted evidence would b e a dmissible if infact di scovered through an independe nt source , it should b e a dmis sib leif itin evit ab lywouldh ave b eendis covered .”) (e mp h a si s o mi tte d) ; see a lso 5 WAYN E R. LA FAVE , S E A R C H A ND S EI ZURE : A TREATI SE O N TH E F OU R T H AM END M ENT § 1 1.4(a) (3d e d. 19 96) (referring to inevitab le discoveryas “a variation” onthe indepe ndent source doctrin e)

. 5 W h at i s c l ear, how ever, is tha tthe di st ri ctcou rtb ased i t s ru l i n g at l east i n pa r to n t he i ne vi t ab l e di s c o ve r y do c t r i ne . Bec aus e o f t hi s a l t e r nat e g r o unds for de n yin g th e m oti on to su p p ress , w e do n ot rea ch th e m erits of t h e g oo d -fa i th
exc ept i on ar gum ent
. I nst ead, w e anal yze t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat t h e e v i d e n c e fr o m th e s e a r c h o f J a c k s o n ’ s h o m e a n dth e s u r r o u n d in ga r e a s is
a d m is s ib le u n d e rth e in e v ita b le d i s c o v e r yd o c tr in e . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. G rose n h ei d er , 200 F
. 3d 32 1 , 3 2 7 (5th C i r. 200 0) (ref u si n g t o consi der w h et h er w a rr a n tles s s e a rc h w a s il le g a l be ca u se in d e p e n d e n t so u rc e d o ctr in e a p p li e d ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. R egi st er , 931 F
. 2d 308 , 311 ( 5th C i r. 199 1) (ref u si n g t o consi der
w he t he re xi ge ntc i rcu m s t anc e s j us t i f i e d aw ar r ant l e s s e nt r y be c aus e t he in d e p e n d e n t so u rc e d o ctr in e a p p li e d ). 3

“ The e xc l us i o nar y r ul e o f t he Fo ur t h Am e ndm e ntg e ne r al l y pr o hibi t s t he i n t rodu ct i on at t ri alof not onl y pri m ary evi den ce obt ai n ed as a dir ectres u l tof an i l l egals ear c h ors ei zur e, but al so evi denc e di sc ove r ed l at er t hat i s der ivat ive of an i l l eg a l i ty, or con sti tu tes ‘ fruit of a p oison ou s tree.’” G rose n h ei d er , 200 F. 3d at 327. “ T h e pri m ary l i m i ton thi s r u l e i s t h at ot h erw i se sup pressibl e evi den ce w i l lsti l lb e a dm i t t e d if t he c o nne c t i o n b e t w e e n t he a l l e ge d i l l e ga l i t y andt he
a cq u i sit i on of th e e v id e n ce is ‘ so a tten u a ted as to d i ssipa te the taint. ’” Id
. ( quot i ng Nard on e v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 308 U
. S . 3 3 8 , 3 4 1 ( 193 9) )

. O n e exam pl e of t h i s “ att en u ati on ” l i m i ti s kn ow n as t h e i n evi t able di scovery doct ri n e, w h i ch Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

6 r e n d e r s th e e x c lu s io n a r y r u le in a p p lic a b le to o th e r w is e s u p p r e s s ib le e v id e n c e if th a t e v id e n c e w o u ldi n e v ita b lyh a v e b e e n d is c o v e r e db yla w fu l m e a n s . S ee5 W AYNE R. L A F AVE , S EARC H AND S EI ZURE : A T RE AT I SE ON T HE F OUR TH A MEN DM ENT § 1 1 .4 (a ) (3 de d . 1 9 9 6 ). Th e i nevi t abl e di sc ove r y r ul e appl i es i f t he G ove r nm ent dem ons t r at es by a preponder ance of

t he e vi denc e t hat( 1) t her e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabil i t y t hat t he c o nt e s t e d e vi de nc e w o ul d ha ve b e e n di sc o ve r e d b y l awf ulm e ans i n t he abs enc e o f

pol i c e m i sc onductand ( 2) t he G ove r nm entw as actively purs ui ng a subs t ant i alal t er nat e l i ne of i nves t i gat i on att he t i m e o f t he c ons t i t ut i onal
v io la tio n . Uni t e d St at e s v . Lam as , 9 3 0 F .2d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). I ti s und i sput ed t hat , ev en w i t houtthe s t at e s ear c h w ar r ant , t he f ede r al
a rres t w a rra n t ga ve the o ffic e r s t h e a u th ority to en ter Ja ck son ’ s reside n ce to
a r r e s t h im
. S ee Payton v. New Y ork , 445 U
. S

. 573 , 6 0 3 (1980 ) ( “ [A ] n arres t
w ar r ant
. . . c ar r i e s w i t h i t t he l i m i t e d aut ho r i t y t o e nt e ra dwel l i ng i n whi c h t he susp ectl ives w h en t h ere i s reason t o bel i eve t h e suspect i s w i t h i n . ” )

. Fu rt h er, th e o ffic e r s h a d t h e a u th o r ityto co n d u c t a s e a r c h o f th e a r e a im m e d ia te ly
s u r r o u n d in gt h e p la c e w h e r e t h e a r r e s t w a s m a d e . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. V irg il , 444 F
. 3d 447 , 451 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) ( “A n y arrestm ay be a ccom pa n i ed bya searc h

‘ i n ci den tt o t h e arres t ’of t h e i m m edi ate v ic i n i t y, l i m i t ed to areas i n w h i ch
w ea p on s m i gh t be fou n d , re ga rd l ess o f p rob a b l e ca u se o r rea son a b l e su sp i ci on . ”) ( quot i ng Ma ry la n dv. B u ie , 494 U
. S

. 325 , 334 ( 199 0) )

. T h u s, t h e of f i cers w ere a ct i ng w i t hi n t hei raut hor i t y w hen t hey di sc ove r ed t he bag of m ar ij uana t hat Jac kso n had hi dden under t he c ouc h w hen th e off i cer s c am e i n. O ur c as e l aw su gg ests th a t o n c e th e off i cers f ou n dthe m a rij u a n a , pr ob a b l e ca u se e xisted to
o b ta in a s e a r c h w a r r a n t. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mon roy , 6 1 4 F
. 2d 61, 64 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 8 0 ) (“T h e od o r o f m a riju a n a p ro v id e dp ro b a b le ca u se fora w id e r s e a rc h
. . . . ”); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Melan con , 4 6 2 F .2 d 8 2 , 8 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 2 ) (“P r o b a b le ca u s e is d e e m e dto e x is tw h e r e th e fa c t s a n dc ir c u m s t a n c e s w i t h i n t h e a ff ia n t ’s Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

7 k n o w le d g e . . . a r e s u ffic ie n t u n to t h e m s e lv e s to w a r r a n t a m a n o f r e a s o n a b le
c aut i on t o b el i eve t hatan of fens e has be en o ri s bei ng c om m i t t ed. ” ) (i nt er nal q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d ). In a d di t i on t o t h e m arij u an a, t h e of f i cers f ou n d equ i pm en tan d other
m ater i al s used i n t h e m an u fact u ri n g of m et h am ph et am i n e ou tsi de the h ou se. Bec aus e t he s e i t e m s w e r e l o c at e d i n t he a r e a s ur r o undi ng t he r e s i de nc e a nd t he off i cers h a d a u th ority to en ter th i s a rea a s th ey ex ecu ted th e arres t w a r r a n t, th eycou l d b e sei ze d p u rsu a n t to th e plain v i ew do ctri n e, w h i ch all ow s p oli ce to
s e iz e ite m s w ith o u t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t. S u c h a w a r r a n tle s s s e iz u r e is p e r m is s ib le i f: ( 1) t he po l i c e l awf ul l y en t ered t he a r e a w he r e t he i t e m w as l o c at e d; ( 2) t he i t em w as i n pl ai n vi ew ; ( 3) t he i ncr i m i nat i ng nat ure of t he i t em w as

“ i m m e di at e l y ap pa r e nt ; ” a nd ( 4) t he po l i c e ha d al awf ulr i ghto f

a c c e s s t o t he ite m . Uni t e dS t a t e s v . Bu c h a nan , 7 0 F. 3d 818, 825

) 26 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 5) (c i t i ng Ho rto n v. Ca lif

o rn ia , 496 U
. S. 128, 136

) 37 (1990))

. O n ce s ei zed, t h i s evi den ce coul d n oton l y be i n t rodu ced at t ri albu tal so used as evi den ce of probab l e cause i n su p p ort of a w a rr a n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. W ebst er , 75 0 F
. 2 d30 7 , 32 8 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). I n t h i s c a s e , t h e o f

f i c e r s d i d n o t s e e k a s e a r c h wa r r a n t b a s e d o n t he evi den ce w h i ch could hav e b een sei zed pu rsuan tt o t h e arres tw arran tbecau se t h ey al readyha d a stat e searc h w arran t
. B u t , ha d they h ad reason t o qu est i on t h e val i di t y of

t h e s tate s earch w arran tor h ad t h ere been n o st ate s earch
w arran t , w e h a v e l i t t l e dou bt t h at t h e of f i cers non et h el ess coul d h ave secured
a search w arran ta n d cond u ct ed t h e search tha ty i el ded the d i spu t ed evi den ce. A s t o t h e sec on d requ i rem en tf or i n vok in gthe i n evi t able di scovery d o c tr in e , it a lm o s t g o e s w ith o u t s a y in gth a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t w a s a c tiv e ly pu rsui n g a sub st an t i alal t erna t e l i n e of i n vest i gati on at t h e t i m e of the al l eged
c o n s tit u tio n a l v io la tio n . Lam as , 930 F
. 2d a t 110 2. I n deed , w e ha ve i n di cat ed t hatt he “ ac t ive - pur s ui te l e m e nt” m ayno l o nge rb e ne c e s s ar y t o i nvo ke t he Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

8 in e v ita b le d is c o v e r yru le
. Id
. a t1 10 4. I n t hi s c as e , w e ne e d n ot a dd res s t he conti n u i n g vi t al i t y o f th e a ct ive- pu rsui tel em en t , as an on goi n g gran d j u ry in v e s tig a tio n th a t h a s a lr e a d yle dto a n in d ic tm e n t w o u ldcle a r lys a tis fyit. Jac kso n’ s onl y ar gum entaddr es si ng w het hert he e vi denc e w oul d have be e n i ne vi t ab l y di s c o ve r e d wi t ho ut t he al l e ge dl y i m pr o pe rs t at e s e ar c h war r ant f o c us e s o n t he pr o t e c t ive s w e e p t hatw as c o nduc t e d c o nt e m po r ane o us l y w i t h t he arrest
. Jackson argu es t h at t h e prot ect ive sw eep could not l egi t i m i ze t h e searc h be c aus e m anyo f

t he s e i z e d i t e m s w e r e f o und o ut s i de t he ho us e , andt hus o ut s i de any ar ea t he pol i c e m i ghtr eas onabl y have s ear c hed t o e nsur e t h ei rs afet y. Reg ar dl e s s o f

t he m e r i t s of

t hi s ar gum e nt , t he r e ar e , a s di s c us s e d, o t he rg r o unds suppor t i ng t he appl i c at i on o f t he i nevi t abl e di sc ove r y do c t r i ne. Jac kso n has
w a iv e da n ych a lle n g e s to th e s e o th e rg r o u n d s b yfa ilin gt o a d d r e s s th e m in h is b r ie fin g . S ee G o o d m a n v . Ha rr is Co u n ty , 571 F. 3d 388, 399 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (n o tin gth a t issu e s in a d e q u a te ly b rie fed on a p p e a l ar e w a ive d ). I n c o nc l us i o n, b e c aus e t he po l i c e w o ul d ha ve i nevi t ablydi s c o ve r e d t he evi denc e e ven had t he s t at e s ear c h w ar r ant n ev er i ss ued, i tnee d notbe sup pressed. T h e excl u si on ary rul e i s m ean tt o pu tt h e pol i ce “i n t h e sam e, not
a w orse, p osi t i on tha n theyw ou l d h ave been in if n o p ol i ce er ror or m i scondu ct h a doccu rred
. ” Nixv . Wi l l i a ms , 467 U
. S

. 431 , 443 ( 198 4)

. In t h i s c ase, excl u si on of th e c h a l l en ged evi den ce w ou l d p u tt h e pol i ce i n a w orse posi t i on t h an t h ey w ou l dh a ve be en i n ab sen t t h e a l l eg ed l y in fi rm state se a rch w a rra n t. A ccor di n gl y, w e af

f i rm t h e di st ri ct court’ s den i al of Jack son’ s m ot i on t o sup press t he e vi de nc e o n t he b as i s o f t he i ne vi t ab l e di s c overy doct r i ne . W e e xp r e s s no o p in io n a s to w h e th e rth e g o o d -fa ith e x c e p tio n ca n b e a p p lie dto th e s e a r c h
. III M i dki f f pr es ent s t w o a r gum ent s on appea l
. Fi r st , M i dki f f c ont ends t hat th e dist ri ct cou rt erre d i n relying on the P S R ’ s reco m m en d a ti on s i n m a k i n g it s se nt enc i ng det er m i n a ti on s b ec ause t he PS R r el i ed o n a quant i t y o f dr ugs t hat Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

9 h a dn o t b e e n s u b m itt e dto th e ju r ya n dp r o v e db e y o n da re a s o n a b le d o u b t in
ac c o r da nc e w i t h A

pp rend iv. New Jersey , 5 3 0 U .S

. 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ). S e co n d , M id k iff
c o nt e nds t hathi s f

i r e ar m - r e l at e d c o nvi c t i on s sh oul d b e r e ve r s e d b e c aus e t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti m pe r m i s s ibly al l ow ed t he g o ve r nm e ntt o a m e nd t he i ndi c t m e nt t o conf orm the f

i rearm seri aln u m ber in the i n di ct m en tt o t h e ser i alnu m ber of th e fir e a r m in tr o d u c e da s e v id e n c e a t t r ia l. A O n a speci alj u ry f

orm , th e ju ry f

ou n d M i dk i f

f an d h i s c o- conspir ator s gu i l t y of

con spi racy to d i st ribu t e 5 0 gram s orl ess of m et h am ph et am i n e, bu tnot gu i l t y of

conspi racy t o di st ribu t e 50 to 500 g ram s or500 gram s orm ore. N o n et h el ess, t h e P robati on O f f i cer att ribu t ed 1, 318 gram s of m et h am ph e t am i ne t o M i dk i f

f based on ext rapol ati on f rom est i m ates provi ded by co- cons p irators
. T h i s in c r e a s e dM id k iff’s b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l b ya t le a s t e ig h t. S eeU. S

. S

. G. § 2 D 1 .1 (c ). M id k iff o b je c te dto th e P S R “in its e n tir e ty ,” b u t d idn o t s p e c ific a lly obj ectt o t h e am ou n tof m e th am ph et am i n e att ribu t ed to h i m . H e now argu es t h at t h e enti re PS R w as t ai n t ed byt h e prepa rer’ s s u bj ect ive bel i ef, w h i ch
c onf l i c t ed w i t h t he unani m ous f i ndi ngs of

t he j ury r egar di ng dr ug quant i t y. Iti s u n n ecess ary t o d eci de w h et h er to ap pl y ou r typi calst an da rd of revi ew o rpl ai n e r r o rr e vi e w b e c aus e bo t h o ur pr e c e de nta nd Su pr e m e Cour tpr e c e de nt fo r e c lo s e M id k iff’s a r g u m e n t re g a r d le s s o f th e s ta n d a r dw e a p p ly
. W e h a v e h e ld t hata “ di s t r i c tc o ur tc o r r e c t l y c al c ul at e d t he q uant i t y o f dr ugs [f

o rs e nt e nc i ng pur po s e s ] no t w i t hs t and i ng t he fac tt hatt he j ur y s pe c i f i c al l y ac qui t t e d [t he d efen d a n t] of th e l a rg e d ru g q u a n ti ti es l a ter fou n db y th e j u d ge . ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. P i n ei ro , 470 F
. 3d200 , 206 ( 5t h C i r . 200 6) ( quo t at i o ns o m i t t e d)

. Li ke w i s e , t he Supr e m e Cour tha s he l d t hat“ a j ur y’ s v e r di c to f ac qui t t al do e s no tpr e ve ntt he
s e n te n c in gc o u r t fr o m c o n s id e r in gco n d u c t u n d e r ly in gth e a c q u itt e dch a r g e [in
s e nt e nc i ng] , s o l o ng as t hatc o nduc t has be e n pr o ve d by a pr e po nde r anc e o f t he Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

We previou sly have held that Wattsremains valid after United States v. Booker , 54 3 4 U. S. 2 2 0(2 0 0 5). See United States v. Farias , 4 6 9F .3 d 3 9 3 , 3 9 9( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6). 10 ev i d en ce.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. W a tts , 5 19 U
. S

. 1 48 , 1 57 ( 19 97 )

. I n t hi s c as e , t he 4 j u ry si m pl y f

ou n d that t h e governm en tha d n o t p ro v ed the l arger qu an t i t i es beyon d a reason able dou bt. Th e acqu i t t alshed s no l i gh ton w h e th er a pre ponder ance of

t he e vi denc e e st abl i she d t he l ar gerquant i t i es , and M i dki f f has
n o t a r g u e dth a t t h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e s ta n d a r dw a s n o t m e t.

“ I n m ak i ng i t s fac t ualf i ndi ngs fo rse nt e nc i ng, a di s t r i c tc o ur tm aya do pt t he f i n d i ngs of

t he PS R w i t houtaddi t i onali nqui r y i f t hos e fac t s have an evi den t i ary basi s w i t h suf f i ci en ti n di ci a of

rel i abil i t y an d the defenda n tdoes not p r e s e n t r e b u tt a l e v id e n c e o ro th e r w is e d e m o n s tr a te th a t t h e in fo r m a tio n is
m a terial l y u n reli a b l e.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. F ord , 5 5 8 F .3d 3 7 1 , 3 7 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). I n t hi s c as e, t he quant i t y o f m et ham phet am i ne at t r ibut ed t o M i dki f f has an e vi de nt i ar y ba s i s w i t h s uf f i c i e nti ndi c i a o f

r e l i ab i l i t y. The PSR not e s t hato ne of M i d k i ff

’ s co-con sp i ra tors, Je sse W a yn e W i l l i a m s, ad vised i n an i n terv i ew w i th pol i c e t hathe had “ c oo ked” 3/ 4 o f an ounc e to 1 o u n c e ( 21. 26 gr am s t o 2 8. 35 gr am s ) o f

m e t ham phe t am i ne onc e ort w i c e ea c h dayo ve ra pe r i o d o f t w o w e e ks be f o r e h i s a r r e s t
. Ut i l i z i n g t h e m i n i m u m e s t i m a t e s p r o v i d e d b y W i l l i a m s , t he PS R cal c ul at ed t he am ountof m et ham phet am i ne c oo ked o vert hi s per i od as 298 gr am s. Si m i l ar l y, W i l l i am s es t i m at ed t hati n t he si x- m ont h per i od pr i ort o t hat t i m e , he ha d c o o ke d 3 / 4 o f a n o unc e t o 1 o unc e t w o t o f o urt i m e s a w e e k,
r e s ul t i ng i n at o t ale s t i m at e d qua nt i t y f o rt hatt i m e pe r i o d o f 1 , 02 0 gr am s . The 1, 318 gram t ot aluti l i zed byt h e pr o bat i on of f i cer ref l ect s t h e 298 gram s produ ced i n t he t w o w e e ks pr i o r t o ar r e s t and t he 1, 02 0 gr am s pr o duc e d pr e vi o us l y. The PS R de t a i l s i nf

o r m a t i o n g a t he r e d no t j us t f r o m W i l l i a m s , b ut f r o m l aw e nf o r c em e ntw i t ne s s e s w ho t e s t i f i e d r e ga r di ng t r af

f i c s t o ps , s ur ve i l l anc e , a nd ot h er s ei zures of

evi den ce, an d f

rom m u l t i pl e co- cons pi rat ors w h o provi ded i nf o r m at i o n r e ga r di ng W i l l i am s ’r o l e a s a m e t ham phe t am i ne c o o k f o rt he Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

B ecau se onhis prior felony drug conviction , Midkiff was subject toanenhanced 5 pe n altyof 3 0yearsi mp ri so n me nt onth e co n sp iracych arge. See2 1 U .S .C

. § 8 4 1 (b)( 1 )( C). 11 conspir acy. T h e P S R f u rt h er notes t h at t h i s i n f orm ati on w as cor roborat ed t h r o u g h a r e v i e w o f

g r a n dj u r ya n d t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t s . Ba s e do n t h e f o r e g o i n g , we concl u de that t h e qu an t i t i es s etf ort h i n the P S R w ere r eason able, ext rapol ated
e s tim a te s s u p p o r t e d b ys u ffic ie n t in d ic ia o f r e lia b ility
. SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. V aldez , 4 5 3 F .3 d2 5 2 , 2 6 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). F i n al l y, w e note t h at M i dk i f f ’ s sentence of

168 m on t h s i m pri sonm en ton t he dr ug c o ns pi r ac y c o unti s l e s s t han t he m ax i m um s e nt e nc e a ut ho r i z e d b y t he j u ry’ s verdi ct
. W e ha ve previ ou sl y f ou n d n o Appr e ndi error w h ere a d ist ri ct 5 court determ i n ed the qu an t i t y of drug s un der t h e prepon deran ce of t h e evi den ce s t and ard an d s e nt e nc e d t he de fe nda ntt o a t e r m o f i m pr i s o nm e ntw i t hi n t he
s ta tu to r yra n g e a u th o r iz e d b yth e ju r y ’ s v e r d ic t. S ee Un itedS ta tes v. D og g ettt , 2 3 0 F .3d 1 6 0 , 1 6 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). B M id k iff a ls o a r g u e s th a t h is co n v ic tio n s fo rp o s s e s s io n o f a fir e a r m in f u rt h eran ce of

a dru g t raf

f i cki n g cri m e a n d possessi on of a f i rearm by a conv i ct ed fe l o n s ho ul d b e r e ve r s e d b e c aus e t he s e r i alnum be rpr o vi de d i n t he i ndi c t m e nt f or t h e f i rearm at i ssue w as not t h e sam e as t h e ser i alnu m b e r for t h e f i rearm i nt r oduc ed as ev i denc e a tt r i al
. H e a r gues t hatt he di st r i c t co u rt e r r ed by perm itti n g an am en dm en tt o t h e i n di ct m en taf t er t h e cl ose of

al levi den ce, pa r t i c ul ar l y w he n t he go ve r nm e nt had kno w l e dg e o f t he di s c r e pa nc y e ar l y i n t he t r i al , i f no te ar l i e r , a nd fai l e d t o m o ve t o a m e nd u nt i le vi de nc e w as c l o s e d. G e n e r a lly , in d ic tm e n ts ca n o n lyb e a m e n d e d b ya g r a n dju r y . Un i t ed S t a t e s v . A d a ms , 778 F
. 2d 111 7, 112 2, 112 5 ( 5th C i r. 198 5)

. B u t , “ [ t ] h e f orm of
a n i n d i ctm en t m a y b e a m en d ed w i th ou t re tu rn to th e gr a n dju ryso l on g a s i ts sub st an ce r em ai n s t h e sam e, ” such as by cor rect i n g a “m i snom er” or m i st ak e of fo r m . Un i t edS ta tes v . Y ou ng B ros. , I

n c. , 7 2 8 F .2d 6 8 2 , 6 9 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 4 ). Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

12 Thus , t he i s s ue i s w he t he rt he a m e ndm e ntt o t he s e r i alnum be rc o ns t i t ut e d a cha n ge i n f

orm akin t o cor rect i n g a typograp h i calerr or ora chan ge i n substance th a t im p e r m is s ib lya lte r e dth e in d ic tm e n t. A l t h ou gh w e ha ve n ever add ress ed thi s qu est i on di rect l y, preceden tf rom t h i s c i rcui tan d oth e rs sug gest s t h at t h e parti cul ar att ribu t es of a f i rearm are n o t a c tu a l e le m e n ts o f th e o ffe n s e . S ee, e. g. , Un i t edS ta tes v. Mu n oz , 150 F. 3d 401 , 4 1 7 ( 5th C i r. 199 8) (f i n di n g n o groun ds t o revers e convi ct i on w h en i ndi c t m e ntc har ge d adif fe r e ntg aug e o f

s ho t gunt han t hatpr e s e nt e d d ur i ng tr ia l); Un i t ed S t ate s v. R obi n son , 974 F. 2d 575, 578 ( 5t h C i r . 1992) (hol di ng t hat

“ w hen an i ndi c t m ental l ege s non- es se nt i alfac t s, t he go ver nm entnee d notpr ove th e m in o r d e rto s u s ta in a co n v ic tio n ”); Un i t ed S t ate s v. R obi son , 904 F. 2d 365, 369 ( 6th C i r. 199 0) (n o tin gt h at “t h e speci f i c t yp e of

f i rearm used or possessed

. . . is n o t a n e s s e n tia l e le m e n t o f [a § 9 2 4 (c ) v io la tio n ]”) ; seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. Morrow , 925 F. 2d 779, 781 ( 4t h C i r . 1991) ( af f i r m i ng di st r i c tcour tf i ndi ng t hat
a o ne - di gi tdif

fe r e nc e b e t w e e n s e r i al num be r o f f i r e ar m a s s t at e d i n i ndi c t m e nt
a n dt h e f

i r e a r m p r e s e n t e da tt r i a lt o b e at y p o g r a p h i c a le r r o rt h a tw e n tt o f o r m, n o t s u b s ta n c e , o f in d ic tm e n t); Un itedS ta tes v. Neff , 525 F
. 2d 361 , 363 ( 8th C i r. 1 9 7 5 ) ( s a me )

. T h e s e c a s e s s u p p o r ta c o n c l u s i o n t h a tt h e c h a n g e w a s o n e o f f o r m, n otsubstance, an d thu s perm i ssibl e. W e a ls o h a v e n o t e dt h a t“ [a ]n a m e n d m e n tw il l b e a ll o w e dif a d e fe n d a n t ’s
r ig h ts a r e n o t a ffe c te da n d h e is a d e q u a te lya p p r is e do f th e ch a r g e s a g a in s t h im so th a t he i s p rotecte dag a i n st su rp ri se a t t ri a l
. . . . ” Y ou ng B ros. , 728 F. 2d at 69 3. I n t hi s c as e , M i dkif f has notco nt e nde d t hathe w as pr ej udi c e d e i t he rb y t he
am e ndm e nti t sel f, or byt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o pe r m i tt he a m e ndm e nt af t e rt he g o ve r nm e ntha d r e s t e d. H e do e s no tc l ai m t hat he w as s ur pr i s e d b y t he t r i alev i denc e, ort hathi s abi l i t y t o defend the c harge s w as i m pai r ed i n any w ay. G iven t h at M i dk i f

f ha s nei t h er al l eged n or sh ow n p rej u di ce, w e f i n d n o abu se of d i scre ti on i n the distri ct cou rt’ s d ecisi on to all ow the go ve rn m en t t o reo p en i ts Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 07- 30981

13 c a s e to a m e n dth e in d ic tm e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mol i n ares , 700 F. 2d 647, 652 ( 11th C i r. 198 3) (f

i n di n g t h at t h e courtof app eal s “ w i l lnot di st u rb t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t ’ s e xe r c i s e o f

di s c r e t i o n [ t o re - o pe n a ca s e ] unl e s s t he c i r c um s t anc e s o f t he
c a s e s h o w th a t [t h e d e fe n d a n t] s u ffe r e d a c tu a l p r eju d ic e in th e co n d u c t o f h is d efen se” ) (c i t i ng Uni t e d St at e s v . Mar i no , 562 F
. 2d 941 , 944 ( 5th C i r. 197 7 )); Mag ga r d v
. W

ai nw r ight , 432 F. 2d 941, 942 ( 5t h C i r. 1 970) (not i ng t hatt r i al
c o u r t s a r e v e s t e dwi t h c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c i d i n gwh e t h e rt o a l l o w a p a r tyto re -o p e n its ca s e ). IV I n c o nc l us i o n, w e f

i nd t he a ppe l l ant s ’a r g u m e n t s u n a v a ili n ga nd a f f i r m t he convic t i on s. W e al so f i n d n o err or i n M i dk i f f ’ s s en t en ce. A F F IR M E D
. Case: 07-30981 Document: 00511019415 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/03/2010