Source: http://openjurist.org/165/f3d/610/united-states-v-goodson
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 11:48:43
Document Index: 30832654

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 808', 'art, 122', '§ 3109', '§ 841']

165 F3d 610 United States v. Goodson | OpenJurist
165 F. 3d 610 - United States v. Goodson	Home165 f3d 610 united states v. goodson
165 F3d 610 United States v. Goodson 165 F.3d 610
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Terrence Eugene GOODSON, Appellant.
No. 98-1468.
Submitted Oct. 21, 1998.Decided Jan. 11, 1999.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 17, 1999.
David E. Mullin, Cedar Rapids, IA, argued for appellant.
Patrick J. Reinert, Cedar Rapids, IA, argued for appellee.
Terrence Eugene Goodson appeals from a judgment of the district court1 following his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.
Instead of facing a second trial, Goodson entered into a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denials of his motions to suppress and for judgment of acquittal. At the change of plea hearing, Goodson admitted that he possessed 66 grams of cocaine base with the intent to distribute and was thus subject to the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). However, he disputed that the cocaine base was crack cocaine within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c).
On appeal, Goodson argues that the district court erred in denying his request for a Franks hearing and his suppression motions. In support of both arguments, Goodson notes that Meyer failed to state how he knew Goodson, to specifically identify which informant he was describing in the attachment, to detail the reliability of the two other informants, and did not confirm the short-term traffic in front of the house. Because Goodson did not make a "substantial preliminary showing" that Meyer included "a false or reckless statement or omission" and "that the alleged false statement or omission was necessary to the probable cause determination[,]" the court did not err in refusing his request for a Franks hearing. United States v. Milton, 153 F.3d 891, 896 (8th Cir.1998) (internal quotation omitted).
Indeed, as the court observed, Goodson's Franks challenge is essentially a probable cause challenge, which is without merit. Search warrant "[a]pplications and affidavits should be read with common sense and not in a grudging, hyper technical fashion." Walden v. Carmack, 156 F.3d 861, 870 (8th Cir.1998). Reading Meyer's application in such a fashion, we agree with the district court that it is clear that the attachment detailing the informant's reliability refers to the "first and predominant" informant who provided the information that Goodson was selling crack cocaine from 607 Donald Street. We have repeatedly held that " '[t]he statements of a reliable confidential informant are themselves sufficient to support probable cause for a search warrant' " and that " '[t]he reliability of a confidential informant can be established if the person has a history of providing law enforcement officials with truthful information.' " United States v. Formaro, 152 F.3d 768, 770 (8th Cir.1998) (quoting United States v. Wright, 145 F.3d 972, 974-75 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 272, 142 L.Ed.2d 224 (1998)). Thus, even if Meyer had excluded the information from the two other informants and about the short-term traffic or included information that he had never arrested Goodson, his application would have supported probable cause. We also note that even though the other two informants may not have had a track record of reliability, their tips corroborated the first informant's tip and to some extent each other's tips, which also "render[s] their information enough to support a finding of probable cause." United States v. Fulgham, 143 F.3d 399, 401 (8th Cir.1998).
Goodson also challenges the manner of execution of the warrant. Although he concedes that Iowa law permits nighttime execution of search warrants, Iowa Code Ann. § 808.5, he contends that the search violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(c)(1), which provides as a general rule for daytime execution of warrants. His argument is without merit. "When federal officers are a significant part of a search conducted pursuant to a state warrant," federal standards may apply. United States v. Murphy, 69 F.3d 237, 242 (8th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1153, 116 S.Ct. 1032, 134 L.Ed.2d 109 (1996). However, "[n]othing in the record indicates that federal officers participated in the initial entry and search of [Goodson's] residence." Id. Indeed, there was no federal involvement in the search. A state court judge issued the warrant based on a state officer's application and state law enforcement officials executed the warrant. Although Meyer called an Assistant United States Attorney after the discovery of a large amount of crack cocaine, that act did not subject the search to federal standards. See id. Thus, " '[t]he proper standard in this case is whether the state officials complied with ... the Fourth Amendment....' " Id. (quoting United States v. Moore, 956 F.2d 843, 848 (8th Cir.1992)).
We also reject Goodson's argument that the forcible entry into his house violated the common-law knock-and-announce requirement, which is " 'part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment.' " Id. (quoting Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 929, 115 S.Ct. 1914, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995)). "The determination of whether an officer was justified in forcing entry after announcing his presence and purpose does not turn on any hard and fast time limit, but depends upon the circumstances confronting the officer serving the warrant." United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541, 549 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 949, 115 S.Ct. 363, 130 L.Ed.2d 316 (1994).2 "The need to force entry may result from danger to the safety of the entering officers or from the imminent destruction of evidence." Id. In the circumstances of this case, the forced entry was reasonable. See id. (forced entries reasonable where officers waited 6--8 seconds and 5--10 seconds). Meyer testified that he believed waiting twenty seconds after knocking loudly and announcing the officers' presence and purpose was reasonable, considering the size of the house, which was a one-story ranch house, and the potential that the residents could flush crack cocaine down a toilet. Meyer also testified that because Goodson had a record for assault with a deadly weapon, Meyer feared waiting any longer could jeopardize the officers' safety.
Goodson next argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Because Goodson offers no reason to undermine the court's findings that Heiser did not act in bad faith or that the missing evidence was not materially exculpatory,33 he cannot establish a violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), or Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988). See United States v. Jones, 160 F.3d 473, 479 (8th Cir.1998) (no Brady violation where evidence had "little or no exculpatory value"); United States v. Weise, 89 F.3d 502, 504 (8th Cir.1996) ("failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not violate [Youngblood ] unless the defendant can show the police acted in bad faith").
We also reject Goodson's argument that an acquittal is warranted because the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony to the jury. It is true that "[t]he prosecution may not use or solicit false evidence, or allow it to go uncorrected." United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 770 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)). There is no evidence suggesting that at the time of Meyer's or Heiser's testimony that they or the prosecutor knew that evidence had been destroyed in other cases. Even if we assume that Heiser and Meyer testified falsely and impute their knowledge to the prosecutor, Goodson cannot prevail on a claim of prosecutorial use of false testimony because "there is [no] reasonable likelihood that the [false] testimony could have affected the jury's judgment." Id. (internal quotation omitted). In any event, even if he could make such showing, in the circumstances of this case, all Goodson would be entitled to receive is what the district court, exercising its supervisory authority, ordered--a new trial. See Giglio, 405 U.S. at 155, 92 S.Ct. 763.
Goodson also challenges his sentence. Contrary to his argument, the district court did not err in finding that the cocaine base was crack cocaine within the meaning of the Sentencing Guidelines. Section 2D1.1(c), note D, provides that " 'cocaine base,' for the purposes of this guideline, means 'crack.' 'Crack' is the street name for a form of cocaine base, usually ... appearing in a lumpy, rocklike form." Although under the guideline "forms of cocaine base other than crack (e.g., coca paste ... ) will be treated as cocaine," id., "there was no evidence here that [Goodson] was distributing coca paste or other exotic forms of cocaine base." United States v. Brown, 156 F.3d 813, 816 (8th Cir.1998). Indeed, the only evidence was that the seized drugs were crack cocaine. Meyer described the drugs as hard, rocklike substances and testified that Goodson referred to the drugs as crack cocaine. See United States v. Stewart, 122 F.3d 625, 627 (8th Cir.1997) (upholding crack finding based on drugs' rocklike appearance).4 Nor was the district court's finding that Goodson was responsible for 384 grams of crack cocaine clearly erroneous. The court credited Meyer's testimony concerning quantity, and we defer to that finding.
Goodson also argues that the district court erred in refusing his request for a downward departure based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Although the court was uncertain whether it had the authority to depart downward in such a circumstance, it assumed it did, but refused to do so. Even if the court had the power to depart, which we doubt, see United States v. Janis, 69 F.3d 914, 915 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam) ("district court cannot depart where the only purpose of the departure is to deter government misconduct" which "had no relationship to [defendant's] culpability"), we will not review its discretionary refusal to depart downward. Id.
Lucht concerned the application of the federal knock-and-announce statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3109, which we may look to for guidance since it codifies the common-law. See United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 118 S.Ct. 992, 997, 140 L.Ed.2d 191 (1998)
Goodson argues that if the cell phone, address book, or memo device had been available, perhaps he could have shown that they contained telephone numbers or addresses of family and friends, not drug dealers. He also argues that if he had the shoe box, he might have shown it did not have his fingerprints on it, which, he claims, would have impeached Meyer's testimony. We agree with the district court that the unavailable evidence was only potentially exculpatory and, in any event, would be minimally, if at all, useful
Because the district court did not err in sentencing Goodson to 135 months under the guidelines, we do not address his argument concerning the definition of cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1), which provides a mandatory minimum ten-year sentence for possession of more than 50 grams of cocaine base
Goodson raises other arguments, which were not properly preserved for appeal or inappropriately raised in a so-called Anders brief. We nonetheless have reviewed them and find they are without merit
Home165 f3d 610 united states v. goodson