2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-23-2008 

# U SA v . F arri sh P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1904

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . F arri sh" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 334. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/334NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 1904

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M AR CE L RA YNAR D F AR RI S H, a/ k/a M arcel R aynard F arr i s, a/k/ a M i chae l M urphy M ar cel R aynar d Far r i s h, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 05- cr - 00218) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember29, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R , C H A G A R E S a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: O ct ober23, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . M a rc e l F a rrish a p p e a ls h is ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e o n a ll th re e c o u n ts i n hi s i ndi ctm ent . A tt he conc l us i on of hi s tr i al , the j uryconvi ct ed Farr i s h of ( 1) pos s es s i ng w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ve orm or e gr ams of coc ai ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d (b )(1 )(B )(iii); (2 ) u sin g o r c a rry in g a f ire a rm d u rin g a n d in r el at i on t o anydrug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e or , i n fur t her ance of anys uch cr i m e, pos s es s i ng a fi r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ; and ( 3) bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fi r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d Far r i s h t o a to tal o f 1 3 8 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. Farr i s h at t acks hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence on fourgr ounds : ( 1) the G overnm ent p rese n ted in su ff

ici en t evid en ce to su p p o rth is co n v ict ion u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c); (2 ) th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlya d m itt e d e x p e rt tes tim o n yin v io latio n o f F e d e ra l R u le of E vidence 7 04 (b) ; (3) t he D i stri ctC ou rti nap propri at el yden i ed h i s m oti on t o sup press evi dence ; and ( 4) t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n bel i evi ng i tcoul d notdepartfr om the Feder al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ”) t o gr anta dow nw ar d var i ance bas ed s ol el yon the s e n t e n c i n g d i s p a r i t yb e t we e n c r a c k a n d p o wd e rc o c a i n e . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we w i l l aff i r m Far r i s h’ s convi ct i on, butw i l l vaca t e hi s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng.3 I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. O n the n igh t of

M arc h 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , three C ityo f P ittsbu rgh p o li ce o ff icers w ere p a tr o l l i n g t h e Ho me wo o d a r e a o f P i t t s b u r g h i n a n u n ma r k e d p o l i c e v e h i c l e . At appr oxi m at el y10: 00 p. m . , t heycame acr os s a ca ri dl i ng atthe cornerof M ul for d and C or a Str eet s , i n fr ontof a “ no parki ng” s t r eets i gn. D et ect i ve Edw ar d Fal l ertexi t ed the p o lic e v e h ic le a n d a p p ro a c h e d th e id lin g c a r, i n te n d in g to a s k its d ri v e r t o m o v e a lo n g . U p o n ap p roa ch ing the c ar, D etec ti v e F all ert no ti ce d the m an sitti n g alon e in th e d ri v er’s se a t, l a ter id e n tifie d a s F a rrish , g ra b so m e th in g f ro m h is la p w ith h is rig h t h a n d , p lac e it i n hi s m outh, and s t artchew i ng r api dl y . D et ect i ve Fal l ertbel i eved Farr i s h w as i n pos s es s i on o f a n d a tte m p tin g to d e s tr o yc o n tr a b a n d , s o h e a s k e d F a rr is h w h a t h e w a s c h e w in g . F a rrish sta ted th a t itw a s a “ b a g o f w e e d .” D e tec tiv e F a llert a sk e d F a rrish to o p e n h is m o u th, Fa rri sh co m p li ed , an d D etec ti v e F all ert no ti ce d g ree n , leaf ym att er in F arrish’s m o u th , w h ic h h e b e lie v e d b a s e d o n h is e x p e ri e n c e a s a p o lic e o f f ic e r t o b e m a ri

ju a n a . D et ect i ve Fal l ertas ked Farr i s h t o exi tthe vehi cl e and a r r es t ed hi m forpos s es s i on of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance and t amper i ng w i t h evi dence . Far r i s h gave hi s name, buts t at ed that h e lac k ed iden ti fica ti o n b ec au se h is driver’s li ce n se w as su sp en d ed . H e told the o ff icers thatthe ca ri n hi s pos s es s i on bel onged t o hi s gi r l fr i end.4

D ue t o Far r i s h’ s arr es tand hi s s us pended l i cens e, no one w as pr es entt o r emove the vehi cl e fr om t he “no pa r ki ng” zone . T her efor e, the pol i ce a r r anged f ora t ow s ervi ce t o i m pound t he ca r . Pur s uantt o t he t ow i ng pol i cyof the C i t yof Pi t t s bur gh Pol i ce D e p a rtm e n t, th e p o lice p e rf o rm e d a w a rra n tles s in v e n to ryse a rc h o f th e v e h icle a n d its cont ent s . I n t he trunk, t heydi s cover ed ei ghty - ei ghtknot t ed pl as t i c baggi es cont ai ni ng a su b sta n c e late r d e ter m in e d to b e c ra c k c o c a in e , a f u llylo a d e d 9 -m ill im e ter se m iau to m a tic gun, and a ba ggi e w i t h t hi r t yl oos e 9- m i l l i m et err ounds , among ot hernoncontr aband i t ems. T he cr ack c ocai ne w ei ghed 15. 32 gr ams and ha d an appr oxi m at e s t r eetval ue of $1, 700. T he fi r earm w as r egi s t er ed i n Far r i s h’ s name and r ecor ds i ndi cat ed thathe pur chas ed i ton J une 5, 1997. F o llo w in g F a rrish ’s a rre st, th e g ra n d ju ryin d icte d h im o n th re e c h a rg e s: ( 1) pos s es s i ng w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ve orm or e gr ams of coc ai ne bas e; ( 2) us i ng, carry i ng, orpos s es s i ng a fi r earm dur i ng, i n r el at i on t o, ori n fur t her ance of a drug tra f f ick in g c rim e ; an d (3 ) b e in g a f e lo n in p o ss e ss io n a f

ire a rm . F a rrish p led n o t g u iltyto each o f t he ch arges and ch ose t o b e t ri ed b efore a j ury . P ri or t o tr i al , F arr i sh u n su c c e ss f

u llym o v e d to su p p re ss a ll ev id e n c e d isc o v e re d a s a re su lt o f h is a rre st, part i cular l yt he co ntr aban d fo un d d uri ng the inven t orysear ch o f t he car. F arr i sh al so m oved t o pr eventt he G overnm ent ’ s pol i ce of fi cerexpertw i t nes s fr om t es t i fy i ng, w hi ch the D istri ct C o u rtp arti all yg ran ted, ex clud ing an yex p ert t esti m o n yreg ard ing F arrish’s m ent al s t at e w i t h r es pectt o hi s r eas on forpos s es s i ng the coc ai ne. A tthe conc l us i on of5

tr i al , the j ur yconvi ct ed Farr i s h on al l thr ee c ount s . B as ed on hi s char ges , Farr i s h fac ed s t atut orym andat or ym i ni m um s ent ence s of fi ve y ear s eac h on count s one and tw o, and co u n t tw o ’s sen tenc e h ad to ru n co n sec u ti v elyw ith an yad d it ion al sen tenc e. F arrish’s G uidel i nes range fo r counts on e and three t otal ed 7 8 to 97 m on t hs. A tFar r i s h’ s February22, 2007 s ent enci ng hear i ng, hi s couns el as ked the D i s t r i ct C our tt o cons i dergr ant i ng a dow nw ar d var i ance due t o t he s ent enci ng di s par i t ybetw een cr ack a nd pow dercoca i ne, ar gui ng fora t ot al t en- y ears ent ence cal cul at ed byaddi ng t he tw o f iv e -y e a r sta tu to rym in im u m se n ten c e s to g e th e r. T h e D istric t C o u rt re sp o n d e d th a t, despit e i t s di sagreem ent w i t h the cr ack/pow der cocaine sent encing d i spari t y , the requ est t o cons i deri tpr es ent ed “a n i nvi t at i on t o di s r egar d t he verys ett l ed l aw thatI am obl i ged t o fol l ow . ” The D i s t r i ctC our tul t i m at el ys ent ence d Far r i s h t o a t ot al t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 138 m onths , s um m i ng the 78- m ont h G ui del i nes m i ni m um forcount s one and thr ee a nd t he fi ve- y ears t atut or ym i ni m um s ent ence on counttw o t o r eac h t hat amount . Far r i s h t i m el yappea l ed. II. T he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 23 1, and w e exerci se ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r F a rr is h ’s a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T he fol l ow i ng s t andar ds of r evi ew govern t hi s appea l . W hen r evi ew i ng a j uryver di ctfor su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e , w e w ill su sta in th e v e rd ict if a n yra tio n a l trier o f

f a c t co u ld have f ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , and w e vi ew6

th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e G o v e rn m e n t. U ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 180, 187 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . C ons equent l y , a “c l ai m of i ns uffi ci encyof the evi dence pl ace s a veryheavybur den on an a ppel l ant . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G onz al ez , 918 F. 2d 1129, 1 1 3 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on on admi t t i ng expertt es t i m onyforabus e of d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

at s on , 260 F. 3d 301, 306 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . “To show an abus e of di s cr et i on, appel l ant s m us ts how the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s act i on w as arbi t r ary , fanc i ful orcl ear l yunr eas onabl e [a nd w e] w i l l notdi s turb a tr i al cour t ’ s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on unl es s no r eas onabl e per s on w oul d adoptthe di s t r i ctcour t ’ s vi ew . ” S tec y k v . B e ll Hel i copt erTextr on, I

nc. , 295 F. 3d 408, 412 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . H ow ever , ourr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e is p le n a ry. Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 254 F. 3d 454, 458 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e r evi ew t he deni al of Farr i s h’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s “forcl earerr oras t o t he under l y i ng fac t s , butexer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew as t o i t s l egal i t yi n l i ghtof the di s t r i ct cour t ’ s pr oper l yfound fa ct s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol es , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e r evi ew t he s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our tforunr eas onabl enes s , and F a rr is h b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin g th e u n re a s o n a b le n e s s o f h is s e n te n c e o n a p p e a l. U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 43 7 F . 3d 32 4, 33 2 (3d C i r. 20 06 ). In our r eview , w e m ustfi rs t e n su re th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d n o sig n if ica n t p ro c e d u ra l er ro r in re a c h in g its7

c o n c lu s io n , w h ic h w e re v ie w u n d e r a n a b u s e -o f -d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . U ni t ed Stat es v. W ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). III . A. F a rrish c laim s th e G o v e rn m e n t p re se n ted in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt h is co n v ict ion o n co u n t tw o u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c) b ec au se itp rov ed o n lythe g u n ’s p re se n c e n e x t to th e c o c a in e , an d n o t th a t F a rrish u se d , ca rrie d , o r p o ss e ss e d th e g u n “ in r el at i on t o” or“i n fur t her ance of” a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. T he “mer e pr es ence ” of a fi r earm i s notenough t o s uppor ta convi ct i on under§ 924( c) ; i ns t ead, s om e evi dence m us ti ndi cat e thatt he pos s es s i on of the fi r earm actual l yfur t her ed the drug tr aff i cki ng o f f e n s e . U ni t ed Stat es v. Spar r ow , 371 F. 3d 851, 853 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe fi r earm fur t her ed the drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e, thi s C our tcons i der s the fo ll o w ing n o n ex clus ive f ac tors: th e typ e o f d rug ac ti v ityb eing co n d u cted , the f ir ea rm ’s acc es s i bi l i t y , t he type of f i r earm , w hetherthe fi r earm w as s t ol en, the l egi t i m acyof the po sses si on , w hethert he fir earm i s l oad ed, the fir earm ’s proxim i t yt o d rugs or drug profit s, a n d th e tim e a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s u n d e r w h ic h th e g u n w a s f o u n d . I d. Farr i s h has notm ethi s heavybur den t o s how thatthe evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al w as i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n hi s convi ct i on. T he G overnm entpr es ent ed evi dence i ndi cat i ng that the c o ca ine in F arrish’s tru n k w as p ac k ag ed to b e so ld, and n o t i n tend ed fo r F arrish’s p e rso n a l u se . T h e p ro x im ityo f th e g u n to th e d ru g s, th e f a c t th a t d ru g d e a ler s c o m m o n ly8

carrygu ns, and t he am ou nt of am m un i t i on i n the gun al l helped d em on strat e t hat Farr i sh i nt ended t o us e the gun w hi l e tr aff i cki ng coca i ne. C ons t rui ng al l evi dence i n t he l i ght m o st f a v o ra b le to th e G o v e rn m e n t an d re v iew in g it u n d e r th e f a c to rs e sta b lish e d in Spar r ow , w e conc l ude thata r at i onal j ur orcoul d have f ound t hatFarr i s h pos s es s ed the gun i n fur ther ance of a drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e.

B. F arrish n ex t argu es h e sh o u ld rec eive a n ew tr ial b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt im p ro p e rl ya d m itte d e x p e rt te s tim o n yin v io la tio n o f F e d e ra l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 7 0 4 (b ). R u le 7 0 4 (b ) lim its th e c o n ten t o f e x p e rt tes tim o n y , an d b a rs e x p e rt tes tim o n yo n “ u lti m a te i s s ues , ” i ncl udi ng w hetherornota def endanthas “the ment al s t at e orcondi t i on cons t i tut i ng an el ementof the cr i m e cha r ged orof a de fens e ther et o. ” Farr i s h ar gues t he D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d nothave pe r m i t t ed the G overnm ent ’ s expertt o t es t i fyas t o w hether the quant i tyof drugs i n t he trunk i ndi cat ed i nt entt o s el l and w hetherthe pr oxi m i t yof the g u n to th e d ru g s in d ic a te d in te n t to u s e th e g u n in c o n ju n c tio n w ith d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g . Farr i s h as s ert s t hat , i n m aki ng s uch s t at ement s , the expe r tvi ol at ed R ul e 704( b) by test ify ing to the u lt im ate issue o f w h ethe r F arrish h ad the re q u isi te m en tal stat e f o r a fin d ing o f g u il t un d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c). W e have hel d t hat“[e ] xper tt es t i m onyi s admi s s i bl e i f i tm er el ys uppor t s an i nference o r concl usi on that the d efen dan tdid or di d n ot have t he requ i si t e m ens rea, so l ong as the expe r tdoes notdr aw t he ul t i m at e i nfer ence orconcl us i on forthe j ury . ”9

U ni t ed Stat es v. W

at s on , 260 F. 3d 301, 309 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . H ow ever , “[i ] ti s s ett l ed l aw thatan expe r tm ayt es t i fyaboutcomm on behavi or patt erns i n a pr ofes s i on ors ubcul tur e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , 4 5 8 F . 3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 2 (3d C ir . 2006) . I n P r i ce , w e re

jected the d ef

en d an t’ s arg u m en t th at R u le 70 4 (b) b arred an ex p ert’s t es t i m onyt hat“[d] rug s el l er s . . . al m os tal w ay s have a gun athand orr eadi l yavai l abl e” b e c a u s e th e G o v e rn m e n t s u b m itte d th e te s tim o n yto p ro v e th e d e f e n d a n t’ s m e n ta l s ta te . I d. at205. T he t es t i m onyw as “no more and no l es s than a de s cr i pt i on, i n gener al and fac tual t erm s , [of] t he comm on pr act i ces of drug deal er s . ” I d. at212 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s o m itted). I n the pr es entcas e, t he expe r tw i t nes s t es t i fi ed thatthe fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s su rro u n d in g F a rrish ’s b e h a v io r w e re “ in d ica tiv e ” o f so m e o n e w h o h a d th e in ten t to del i verdrugs . Si m i l art o t hati n P r i ce , thi s expertt es t i m onym er el ydes cr i bed the comm on pr act i ces of drug deal er s and di d notdr aw the ul t i m at e i nfer ence orconcl us i on fort he j ury . A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on by al l ow i ng thi s expertt es t i m onyagai ns tFarr i s h. C. F a rrish n e x t ar g u e s th e D istric t C o u rt in a p p ro p ria telyd e n ied h is m o tio n to s uppr es s t he evi dence r ecove r ed fr om the trunk of hi s carfol l ow i ng hi s arr es tbeca us e the po l i ce act ed u nlaw full yi n sei zi ng him w hen theyfi rs tapp roached his veh i cl e. F arr i sh a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t p re se n ted c o n f lictin g e v id e n c e o n w h e th e r th e p o lice b lo c k e d h is10

vehi cl e i n s uch a w ayas t o i m pede hi s abi l i t yt o l eave . Far r i s h al s o ar gues he w as not vi ol at i ng the l aw beca us e he ha d onl ys t opped t empora r i l y , and had notparked, underneath t he “no pa r ki ng” s i gn. W e fi nd t hes e di s put es i m m at er i al . Pol i ce of fi cer s m ayappr oach a nd ques t i on in d iv id u a ls u n d e r le ss th a n re a so n a b le s u sp icio n w ith o u t v io latin g th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. F l or i da v. R oyer , 460 U . S. 491, 497 ( 1983) . Fur t her , a pol i ce of fi cerw ho bel i eves a tr aff

i c vi ol at i on has occurr ed mayl aw ful l ys t op the ca rcomm i t t i ng the v io la tio n w h e th e r o r n o t th e o f f ic e r w a s u ltim a te ly co rr e c t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. B onner , 363 F. 3d 213, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I n t hi s cas e, Farr i s h’ s pot ent i al parki ng vi ol at i on o c c u rre d in a h ig h -c rim e a re a a n d c o u ld h a v e m a d e it d if f icu lt fo r e m e rg e n c yv e h icle s to navi gat e the i nt er s ect i on. D et ect i ve Fal l erti ni t i al l ypl anned t o as k Far r i s h t o m ove the ca r and onl yarr es t ed Farr i s h aft erhe beha ved s us pi ci ous l y , byi ndi cat i ng a pos s i bl e att empt t o des tr oycontr aband, and admi t t ed he ha d s w al l ow ed mar i j uana. B eca us e D et ect i ve Fal l er thad know l edge s uffi ci entt o w arr antthe conc l us i on thatFarr i s h had comm i t t ed a c ri m in a l o f

f e n s e , w e f

in d n o th in g w ro n g w ith F a rr is h ’s a rr e s t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. M yers , 3 0 8 F . 3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). F a rrish a rg u e s th a t ev e n if h is a rre st w a s la w f

u l, th e p o lice still v io late d h is F o u rth A m endmentr i ght s i n conduct i ng t he i nvent orys ear ch of hi s vehi cl e’ s trunk, w hi ch he c o n ten d s w a s a “ f

ish in g e x p e d iti o n ” f

o r e v id e n c e . H o w e v e r, th e p o lice h a v e th e rig h t to t ake a vehi cl e i nt o cus t odyw i t houta w arr antundercert ai n ci r cumst ance s , s uch as w hen a11

vehi cl e “i m ped[e s ] t r aff i c ort hr eat en[s ] publ i c s afe t yand conve ni ence . ” South D akota v. O pper m an , 4 2 8 U . S . 3 6 4 , 3 6 7 , 3 6 9 (19 7 6 ). O n ce the p o li ce h av e d o n e so , theyare perm i t t ed t o i nvent or yt he ca r ’ s cont ent s , s o l ong as theyconductthe i nvent orys ear ch i n a re a s o n a b le m a n n e r a n d s u b je c t to ro u tin e p ro c e d u re s . I d. a t 3 6 9 ; U

ni t ed Stat es v. Fr ank , 864 F. 2d 992, 1001 ( 3d C i r . 1988) . A l s o, “[t ] he mer e fa ctthatan i nvent orys ear ch may al s o have ha d an i nves t i gat or ypurpos e does not. . . i nval i dat e i t . ” Fr ank , 864 F. 2d at 1001. Farr i s h’ s parked ca rcoul d have pr event ed emer gencyvehi cl es fr om navi gat i ng t he i nt er s ect i on, and i ti s cl eart he pol i ce ha d a r i ghtt o i m pound i t . A l s o, ther e i s no evi dence in d ica tin g th e p o lice c o n d u c ted th e in v e n to ryo f F a rrish ’s v e h icle in a n u n re a so n a b le f a sh io n o r f

o r a n yo th e r im p ro p e r p u rp o se . A c c o rd in g ly , w e f in d th e D istric t C o u rt d id noterrw hen i tdeni ed Farr i s h’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s the evi dence found af t erhi s arr es tand d u ri n g the v ali d inv en torysea rch o f h is car. D. F in a lly , F a rrish a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d p ro c e d u ra l er ro r in se n ten c in g b e c a u se it b e liev e d it co u ld n o t d e p a rt f ro m th e G u id e lin e s to g ra n t a d o w n w a rd v a ri a n c e b a s e d o n th e s e n te n c in g d is p a ri ty b e tw e e n c ra c k a n d p o w d e r c o c a in e . U n d er G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , w e “r evi ew the s ent ence underan abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d. [W e] m us tfi r s tens ur e thatthe di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed no s i gni fi cant pr ocedur al err or , s uch as fai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes12

ran g e, trea ti n g the G u idelines as m an d atory , [o r] fail ing to co n side r th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors

. . . . ” 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 7 ). H e re , the D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d p ro c e d u ra l er ro r b yf a ili n g to re c o g n ize its author i tyt o gr anta dow nw ar d s ent enci ng var i ance , eff ect i vel ytr eat i ng the G ui del i nes as m a n d a to ry. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e h a v e h e ld thata di s tr i ctcourt“err s w hen i tbel i eves thati thas no di s cr et i on t o cons i derthe cr ack/pow dercoca i ne di ffe r ent i al i ncorpor at ed i n t he G ui del i nes . ” I d. at249. A tthe sen tenc ing h ea ri n g , F arrish’s co u n sel arg u ed fo r a d o w n w ard v arian ce u n d er G unt erdue to th e c ra c k /p o w d e r se n ten c in g d isp a rity . T h e D istric t C o u rt re sp o n d e d th a t, de sp ite its d isa g re e m e n t w ith th is d isp a ritya n d its a c k n o w led g m e n t th a t “[ i]t’s u n f a ir,” th e d isp a rity i s “a de ci s i on m ade byC ongr es s , and i t ’ s a dec i s i on thatthe court s have uphe l d. I am ob l i ged t o u ph old w hatever deci si on s ar e m ade b yhigher court s. ” T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so s t at ed thatt he r eques tt o cons i dert hi s di s par i t ypr es ent ed “a n i nvi t at i on t o di s r egar d t he v e ryse ttl e d law th a t I a m o b lig e d to f o llo w .” T h e D istric t C o u rt th e re f o re a b u se d its di s cr et i on bynotcons i der i ng a s ent enci ng var i ance bas ed on the cr ack/pow dercoca i ne d i s p a r i ty. A f ter F a rrish ’s s e n ten c in g h e a rin g , the S u p re m e C o u rt a p p ro v e d o u r h o ld in g in G unt erth a t a D istric t C o u rt e rrs in se n ten c in g a c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t w h e n it b e liev e s it c a n n o t d e p a rt f

ro m th e G u id e lin e s o n th e b a s is o f th e c ra c k /p o w d e r c o c a in e d is p a ri ty. See K i m br ough v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t . 558, 564 ( 2007) ( “[T] he coc ai ne G ui del i nes , l i ke13

a ll o th e r G u id e lin e s, a re a d v iso ryo n ly , an d . . . the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls [ f

o r th e F o u rth C ir c u it] e rr e d in h o ld in g th e c ra c k /p o w d e r d is p a ri ty ef f e c tiv e ly m a n d a to ry.” ). A ddi t i onal l y , att he t i m e Farr i s h fi l ed hi s br i ef, the U . S. Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on had not y etadopt ed A m endment706, w hi ch modi fi ed the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r anges t o r educe the di s par i t ybetw een c r ack a nd pow dercoca i ne off ens es , s peci fi cal l ydecr eas i ng the G ui de l i ne s ba s e of

fe ns e l e ve l s fo rc r a c k c oc a i ne s e nt e nc e s bytw o l e ve l s . U . S. S entenci ng G uidel i nes M anu al § 2 D 1. 1. B ecause the D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced F arr i sh bel i evi ng i tdi d nothave the pow ert o cons i derthe cr ack/pow dercoca i ne di s par i t yas des cr i bed i n G unt er , and s ubs equent l yr ecogni zed bythe Supr eme C our ti n K i m br ough , w e w i l l r emand t o al l ow t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o t ake K i m br ough a n d A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 in to co n side rati o n an d to p rov ide c learer lan g u ag e f o r w h atev er se n tenc e the D istri ct C o u rt i m po ses on rem and . A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l vacate Farr i sh’s sent ence a nd rem and this case forr es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h thi s opi ni on. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm F a rrish ’s c o n v ictio n , an d w e w ill v a c a te Farr i s h’ s s ent ence i m pos ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tand r emand forr es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof K i m br ough and A m endment706.