### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A ugu st 31 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ N o. 04- 1438 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 03- 0000 1- CR -W T M- 5 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JAM ES EDWARD BROWN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ (A ug us t 31, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Jam es E dwar d Brown a

ppeals his con viction , pursuant to his gu ilty plea, an d 10 8- m onth se nte nc e fo r be ing af el on i n po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m , in vio la tio n of 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g)(1). W e af firm his convi ction. But w e vacate his sentence an d r em an d f

or r es en te nc ing c onsi ste nt w ithU nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S. Ct. 738 (200 5).

BACKGROUND

Brow n initiallywa s charged w ith: po ssessio n with intent to d istribut e cr ack co ca ine , 21 U . S. C. § 84 1, c ar ry ing f ir earm s duri ng and i n r el at ionto a dr ug tr a f f i c k i n g c r i me , 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) , an db e i n g af e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

af i r e a rm, 18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). B y ple a ag re em en t, Br ow n pl ed gui lty onl y to the f el on- inposs es sio n c harg e, but

r es er ve d th e ri ght

to ap pe al the de nia l of

his m oti on t o supp re ss f

ir earm s and dru gs f

ound in the tr unk of the c ar he w as dr ivi ng. At the suppression h earing, conducted bya m agistrate j udge, Police O ffice r Tom m y Spikes testified that, very ear ly on a m orning in April 2002, he stopped tw o c ar s. T he se co nd c ar , dr ive n by Br ow n’ s gi rl fr ie nd, D any Co tr el l, ha d a he ad lig ht o ut; and the f

ir st c ar , dr ive n by

Br ow n, w as w eavin g be tw ee n lane s andThe tin ca n later w as dete rmined to contain 22.57 grams of c rac k coca ine. 1 3 running off the side of the r oad. Br own exited his car and staggered toward Of ficer Spikes, slurring his speech. Char lton Cou nty Sherif f’ s Deputy

Gr over Rh ode n arr ive d a t the sc en e: avid eo ta pe of part of the arr es t w as take n f

ro m D ep uty Rh ode n’ s patr ol c ar . Whe n a ppr oa ch ed

by O ff ic er S pik es , Br ow n onhis ow n a cc or d pl ac ed

his hands on the pa tr ol c ar and s pr ea d hi s le gs a s if

to be se ar ch ed . B ro w n te ste d po sit ive f or a lc ohol . O ff

ic er S pik es se ar ch ed

Br ow n, handcuffed him , and placed him in the back of patrol car. Of ficer Spikes arre sted Br ow n f or dr ivi ng unde r the inf

lue nc e, f or f ai lur e to m ai nta in h is l an e, and f or driving with a suspended driver’ s license. Co tr el l m ove d B ro w n’ s c ar out of the w ay and h an de d O ff

ic er S pik es the ign iti on k ey . O ff

ic er S pik es the n a ske d B ro w n if he w oul d c onse nt t o ase ar chof the ve hic le . A cc or din g to the of fi ce rs , Br ow n answ er ed , “ Y eah, y ou’ re not goi ng to f ind nothin g bu t a

li ttl e ginand j uic e anyw ay s. ” Br ow n sa id tha t he did not know wher e the trunk key wa s. D eputy

Rhoden dis covered the key in the backseat of the patrol car wher e Br own w as being detained. O ffice r Spikes again asked Br ow n f or c onse nt t o se ar chthe c ar ; and B ro w n r es pond ed a ff irm at ive ly . T he of fi ce rs f ound ac up o f al co hol ins ide the c ar ; the y se ar ch ed the tr unk an d f ound six f ir earm s and a

ti n c anc ont ai nin g w ha t a ppe ar ed to be c ra ck

c oc ai ne . B ut

14

Bro wn t es ti fie d t ha t h e was no t as ke d fo r, an d d idno t o ffer , con se nt to th e se arch . A nd C otr el l t es tif

ie d th at she did not he ar Br ow n gi ve pe rm iss ionf or the se ar ch . T he m ag istrate j udge r ec om m en de d th at

Br ow n’ s m oti on t o su

ppr es s be de nie d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the m ag istrate ’ s r ep ort and r ec om m en da tio n. The pre sentence investigatio n report (“ PSI ”) a ssign ed a base off ense level of 20, U . S. S. G . § 2K2. 1( a) (4 )( A ), a lon g w itha2- le ve l e nhanc em en t f or pos se ssi ng be tw ee n 3 and 7 f

ir earm s, § 2K2. 1( b) (1 )( A ), and a 4- le ve l e nhanc em en t f

or poss essing firearm s in connectio n with another felony offense: “poss ession o f a large am ount of cra ck cocaine”, § 2K2.1(b)( 5). But based on a determ ination that Br ow n po sse sse d th e fi re ar m s inc onne ct ionw ithhis pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o distribu te m ore than 20 but less than 35 g ram s of cra ck cocaine, the PSI then re co m m en de d a ppl y ing the c ro ss- re fe re nc e pr ovi sio n, § 2X 1. 1, w hic h pr ovi de d f or a base off ense level of 28, under § 2D1. 1(c)( 6). The P SI r ecom m ended a 2-level enhanc em en t f

or pos se ssi ng a

f ir earm , § 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ), and a 3- le ve l r ed

uc tio n f or acce ptance of re spon sibili ty , § 3E 1.1, for a total off ense level of 27. C om

bined w ithc ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y I II , Br ow n’ s gu ide lin e im pr iso nm en t r an ge w as 87 to 10 8 m on th s. Br ow n ob j ec te d to the appl ic at ionof the f our -l ev el § 2K2. 1( b) (5 ) enhanc em en t and the appl ic at ionof the § 2X 1. 1 c ro ss- re fe re nc e as avio la tio n ofDuring his guilty plea hearing , Br own admit ted t hat he “wa s driving the car that had the guns 2 and the c ra c k in it. ” B ut B ro wn a dmi tte d n e ith e r t o d

ru gqu anti ty

no r t o p os se ssi ngthe dr

ug s w ith intent to distribute the m. Also, Br own did not object to the § 2K2.1( b)(1) (A) e nhance ment for the number of f

irea rms involved. 5 his Sixth Am endm ent rights un der Blakely v. W ashingt on, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004): he did not a dm it to the of

fe nse s of pos se ssi on o f co ca ine or pos se ssi on o f co ca ine w ithint en t t o di str ibu te . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d B ro w n’ s ob j ec tio n, a dopt ed

the 2 re co m m en da tio ns i n th e PS I, and s en te nc ed Br ow n to 108 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. DISCUSS ION

Fi rs t, Br ow n c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c our t’ s de nia l of

his m oti on t o su

ppr es s th e g un s an d d ru gs fou ndin th e trun k o f hi s ca r du rin g t he tra ffi c st op . Bro wn contends that the war

rantless search of his trunkwa s not justified as the searc h w as not int en de d to pr ev en t dange r to the of fi ce rs c ondu ct ing the tr af fi c sto p. A nd Brow n m aintains that he did not kn owingly and volu ntarily

consent to th e sear ch o f th e tr u n k : h e tr i e dt o h i d e th e k e y t o th e tr u n k , an dth e arr e s t i n g o f

f i c e r s ’ c l a i ms of consent wer e not corroborated or supported bythe videotape of the scene taken fr om D ep uty Rh ode n’ s ve hic le . W e re j ec t B ro w n’ s arg um en ts.6

I n c o n s i d e r i n g th e d e n i a l o f ad e f e n d a n t ’s mo t i o n t o s up p r e s s , we ap p l y a m ixed standard of review: w e re view “ the district court’ s finding s of fac t for clear er ro r an d it s a

ppl ic at ionof

lawto tho se f

ac ts d e novo . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. L y ons, 403 F. 3d 1 248, 125 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . W e co nstru e al l f ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost favor ab le to the pr ev ai lin g party : the gov er nm en t. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo y ce , 351 F. 3d 11 02, 1105 (11t h Cir. 2003 ).

“ [T ] he general r

ule in the crim inal context is th at w arrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Am endm ent--subje ct only to a few spe ci fi ca lly

e sta bli she d and w el l- de lin eate d e xc ep tio ns. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. G onz al ez , 71 F . 3d 8 19, 825 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( int er na l c itatio n and quot at ion om itt ed ). O ne of

the se e xc ep tio ns “ is a

se ar chc ondu ct ed

pur suant t o c onse nt t o se ar ch . ” I d. a t 82 7. Adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n th at c onse nt w as vol unt ar

y is a finding of fact: w e w ill not d isturb th is findin g absent clear e rror. U nited States v. S im m s, 385 F . 3d 1 347, 135 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) , c er t. de nie d, 125 S . Ct . 187 2 (2 005) . I n ana ly zi ng v oluntari ne ss, c ourts m ak e a fa ct ua l de te rm inatio n ba se d on the tot al ity

of the c ir cum stanc es . I d. ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ) (l ist ing f ac tor s c ourts exam ine). T he dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed no e rr or in de ny ing Br ow n’ s m oti on t o su pp res s b as edon hi s co ns en t t o t he sea rch of t he tru nkof t he car h e was dri vi ng .Br own’s attempt to hide the trunk key could cast doubt on whether he conse nted to a sea

rch of 3 the trunk. B ut the possibili ty that he both hid the trunk key and conse nted to the sea rch c ould have be e n b a se d o n a

be lie f t hat th e ke y

wo uld no t be fo un d. At

le a st, no c le ar e rr or

e xists : th is p os sib ili ty is not “contrary t o t he laws of nature , or is so inconsistent or improbable on its fac e that no rea sonable fa ctfinder

could ac cept it.” Pineiro, 389 F .3d at 1366. We need not addr ess B rown’s c l ai m t hat the sea rch w as not one that would have bee n made 4 leg al bec ause the evidenc e inevitably would have be en discove red.

7 Br ow n do es not

arg ue that hi s c onse nt w as c oe rc ed ; i nst ea d, m or e ac curate ly he arg ue s t ha t h e was no t as ke d fo r, an d d idno t g ran t, h is co ns en t t o t he sea rch at a ll . Bu t the m ag istrate j udge r ej ec te d B ro w n’ s and C otr el l’ s te sti m ony a s le ss c re dib le than th at of the of fi ce rs . T his c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n “ is w ith in the pr ovi nc e of th e fac tfi nd er”, an d B ro wn h as pre se nt edno reas on to di st urb t hi s d et erm in at io n. United States v. Pineiro, 389 F.3d 135 9, 1366 (11th Cir. 2004 ). Br ow n po int s to the vid eo ta pe a s e vid en ce that he did not c onse nt t o th e s ea rc h . B u tth e v i d eo t ap e i s i n co n cl u s i v e a n dd o es n o tco n t ra d i ct Of fi ce r S p i k es ’s t es t i m o n y. Br o wn i s n o ti n th e v i d eo t ap e: i ti s a v i d eo fr o m De p u t y Rh o d en ’s pa tr ol c ar , it

f oc use s onBr ow n’ s c ar , and B ro w n w as de ta ine d inthe ba ck of O ff ic er S pik es ’ s patr ol c ar . A nd, O ff ic er S pik es te sti fi ed

that B ro w n c onse nte d to a sear ch after

the trunk key

wa s found: this ind icates Br own’ s consent to a sear ch of the trunk. Brown has sho wn no clear err or in the district court’ s fact 3 de te rm inatio n th at

Br ow n c onse nte d to ase ar chof the ve hic le , inc lud ing the tr unk. 48

N ex t, c iti ng B lake ly , Br ow n arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pr ope rl y enhanc ed his se nte nc e ba se d onr el ev an t c ondu ct he did not a dm it, in vio la tio n of his S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o have aj ur y m ak e thi s de te rm inatio n. Br ow n ti m el y

r ai se d hi s c onst itu tio na l ob j ec tio n. W e re vie wthi s is sue de novo ; bu t w e w ill not

r ev er se the dis tr ic t c ourt i f the gov er nm en t sh ow s th at

any er ro r w as harm le ss b ey ond a re as ona ble doubt. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. P az , 405 F. 3d 94 6, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). W e have state d th at

und er Bo oke r “ the S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o tr ia l by j ury is violated where under a m andatory guidelin es sy stem

a sentence is incre ased because of an e nhancem ent based on facts found bythe j udge that were neither adm itt ed by the de fe ndant n or

f ound by the j ur y . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F. 3d 1 291, 129 7 ( 11th C ir . ) (e m pha sis in or igi na l) , c er

t. de nie d, 125 S . Ct

293 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . B r o w n ’s s e n t e n c e w a s e n h a n c e d , u n d e r aman d a t o ry g u i d e l i n e s s ys t e m, based on facts found bythe j udge and no t adm itted by him : Booker indicates that Br ow n’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o tr ia l by j ur y w as vio late d. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Davis, 407 F.3d 1269 , 1270 (11th Cir. 2005). A nd the gov er

nm en t ha s f

ai le d to sho w“ that the m an da tor y , a s op pose d to th e a d v i s o ry, ap p l i ca t i o n o f t h e g u i d el i n es d i dn o tco n t ri b u t e t o [B ro wn ]’s se nte nc e. ” Id . a t 12 71. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ej ec te d B ro w n’ s B lake ly obj ec tio n; b ut9

the district court elaborated no further on this m atter. T he district court did n ote at sentencing (1) that it had accepted the plea agree m ent because it w as “ satisfied that the a gr ee m en t a de quate ly r ef le ct s th e se ri ousn es s of

the a ct ua l of fe nse behavior” and (2) that Brow n had received a “ great benefit” from the plea ag re em en t. B ut t

he se state m en ts d o no t sp eak to w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d have given the sam e sentence r egardless of w hether the guidelin es we re a dviso ry or m an da tor

y . S ee id. a t 12 71- 72 ( no h ar m le ss e rr or

be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt wher e “ [w ] e sim

ply do not know what the sentencing court would have done had it und erstood the gu idelines to b e advisory rather than m andatory ”). Brow n’ s sentence wa s erroneous under Booker. And the go vernm ent has not m et it s burd enof

sho w ing that this e rr or

w as harm le ss b ey ond a re as ona ble doub t. B ro w n m

ust be r es en te nc ed

und er the a dvi sor

y gui de lin es sy ste m : on re m an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt, “ w hil e not bound t o a

ppl y the G uid el ine s, m

ust c onsu lt tho se gui de lin es and t ak e the m int o a cc ount

w he n se nte nc ing . ” P az , 405 F . 3d at94 9 (q uo ti ng Bo ok er, 1 25 S.Ct . at 7 67 ). W e A FF IRM B ro w n’ s c onvi ct ion ; bu t w e V A CA T E Br ow n’ s se nte nc e an d REMAND fo r res en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th Bo ok er.