United States v. Christopher Samuel Carter

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 18, 2010
No. 09-12379
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-00071-CR-ORL-22GJK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER SAMUEL CARTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(February 18, 2010)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Following his conviction for possession of ammunition by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e)(1), Christopher
Samuel Carter argues that (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop and search of the vehicle in
which he was a passenger; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction; and (3) the government should have been required to prove to the jury
beyond a reasonable doubt his statutory predicate convictions that provided the
basis for his Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) sentencing enhancement.
I. Whether the District Court Erred in Denying Carter’s Motion to
Suppress
On appeal, Carter argues that the district court erred in denying his motion
to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop of the Dodge
Magnum in which he was a passenger, including a loaded firearm found under the
front passenger seat where he was sitting.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, “we review the district
court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo” and are
not restricted to the record made at the suppression hearing, but may review the
entire record, including trial testimony. United States v. Newsome, 475 F.3d
1221, 1223-24 (11th Cir. 2007). “[A]ll facts are construed in the light most
2
favorable to the prevailing party below.” Id. (quotation omitted). “‘The
individual challenging the search bears the burdens of proof and persuasion.’” Id.
at 1224 (quoting United States v. Cooper, 133 F.3d 1394, 1398 (11th Cir. 1998)).
Absent a demonstration of clear error, we are bound by the credibility
determinations made by the fact finder because he or she personally observed the
testimony and was thus in a better position than the reviewing court to assess the
witnesses’ credibility. United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th
Cir. 2002).
Carter first argues that the traffic stop was unlawful because Deputy
Michael DeGraw lacked probable cause to initiate the traffic stop as there was no
basis to believe that Lakeisha Johnson, the driver of the Dodge, had committed a
traffic infraction by cutting off the driver of a pick-up truck. However, the district
court credited DeGraw’s testimony that she did so over Ms. Johnson's testimony
that she did not recall cutting anyone off and also noted that Florida law prohibits
drivers from changing lanes unless "the move can be completely made with safety
and without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from
the same direction." (citing Fla. Stat. § 316.085(2).
Because Carter has not pointed to any facts in the record showing that the
district court's decision to credit DeGraw's testimony was clearly erroneous, this
3
Court is bound by that credibility determination. See Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d at
749. DeGraw's testimony established that he observed Ms. Johnson commit a
violation of Florida's laws, thus providing DeGraw with probable cause to stop the
vehicle. Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that the traffic stop
did not violate Carter's Fourth Amendment rights.
Carter next argues that he was unlawfully detained beyond the period that
was necessary to process Ms. Johnson’s traffic infraction warning because (a) Ms.
Johnson testified that the deputies had finished processing her traffic warning at
the point when they began questioning the passengers in the Dodge about their
identities, (b) the district court erred in crediting Deputy Yancy Bowling’s
inconsistent testimony about where he was standing in relation to the Dodge when
he observed Carter remove a large black object from his waistband and place it
under the seat, and (c) Carter had a right to refuse to tell the deputies his name
during the consensual encounter.
Based on this record, we cannot say the district court clearly erred in
crediting Officers DeGraw’s and Carriuolo’s testimony that DeGraw had not
finished processing Ms. Johnson’s traffic warning at the time the other deputies
began questioning Carter, despite Ms. Johnson’s testimony to the contrary. See
Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d at 749. The district court also permissibly credited
4
Carriuolo’s testimony that the continued detention of Carter was based on the
investigation of Carter’s possible seatbelt law violation. Carter has not shown that
this credibility determination was clearly erroneous. Further, Bowling’s and
Carriuolo’s observations of Carter’s suspicious reaching from his waistband to
hide an object under the seat provided reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify
the detention because it was reasonable for the deputies to believe that Carter was
engaging in illegal conduct and that officer safety was at risk.
Carter further contends that there was no basis for the deputies to believe
that other illegal activity was afoot that would justify a pat-down search for
weapons under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
Although both Deputy Bowling testified that he observed Carter take a large black
object from his waistband and place it under the front passenger seat and Deputy
Christopher Carriuolo testified that he also saw Carter reach under the seat, Carter
contends that at the point when he was asked to step out of the car, the deputies
lacked a basis to believe that he was armed and dangerous. Finally, Carter
contends that the seizure of his wallet during the pat-down search was unlawful.
Prior to the search, Carter had told Deputy Carriuolo, when he was preparing a
citation for failing to wear a seat belt, that he did not have identification on his
person. However, during the pat-down search for weapons, Carter told Deputy
5
Carriuolo that the item in his pocket was his wallet that contained his
identification. Florida law prohibits a person who has been lawfully detained by
law enforcement from giving a false name or otherwise falsely identifying himself
to the law enforcement officer. Fla. Stat. § 901.36(1). We find no error under
these circumstances for the seizure of Carter’s wallet.
Accordingly, Carter’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because
(a) the deputies had a lawful basis to stop the vehicle, (b) Carter was not
unlawfully detained, (c) the deputies had reasonable, articulable suspicion
justifying the pat-down search of Carter’s person, and (d) the deputies did not
exceed the permissible scope of the pat-down search. Therefore, the district court
therefore did not err in denying Carter’s motion to suppress.
II. Whether Sufficient Evidence Supports Carter’s Conviction for
Possession of Ammunition by a Convicted Felon
Carter next argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for
judgment of acquittal because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
show beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed the ammunition in
question. Carter essentially argues that the witnesses against him were not
credible. We find this argument unavailing.
6
To the extent that a defendant’s argument depends upon challenges to the
witnesses’ credibility, the jury has exclusive province over that determination and
we may not revisit this question when the witnesses’ testimony is not incredible as
a matter of law. “For testimony of a government witness to be incredible as a
matter of law, it must be unbelievable on its face.” United States v. Calderon, 127
F.3d 1314, 1325 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation omitted). It must be
testimony as to “facts that the witness physically could not have possibly observed
or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature.” Id. (internal
quotations and brackets omitted).
In this case sufficient evidence was presented to the jury to support the
guilty verdict. Deputy Bowling testified that when he was standing approximately
three feet from the car, he observed Carter lift up his shirt, reach into his
waistband, remove an eight to ten-inch long object that appeared to be wrapped in
black cloth, and shove that object under the seat. That object turned out to be a
loaded firearm. Deputy Bowling also testified that when he saw Carter reach to
his waistband and place the object under the seat, he immediately "called that out
to [Officer] Carriuolo," and when Carter continued to reach under the seat after
being ordered to exit the vehicle, Bowling again alerted Carriuolo to Carter's
actions. Carriuolo confirmed that as he was walking to his squad car to check
7
Carter's identification, Bowling was standing near the front passenger side of the
vehicle and shouted to him that Carter was reaching under the seat.
The jury also heard testimony from the backseat passenger, Ford, that she
saw Carter lean forward in his seat when a deputy was outside the car. Ford also
testified that she did not own a gun, that she had been in the Dodge at least 50
times prior, had never seen a gun or ammunition in the Dodge before that night,
and that neither the owner nor the driver of the Dodge owned a gun or
ammunition. Ms. Johnson and her father likewise testified that they did not own a
gun or any ammunition. Mr. Johnson also testified that immediately before Carter
left in the Dodge with Ms. Johnson and Ford, he had seen Carter holding a gun
wrapped in a dark cloth. Based on the witness testimony and the physical
evidence found in the Dodge, we conclude that the government presented
sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Carter of knowingly possessing
ammunition in or affecting interstate commerce.
III. Whether the Government Should Have Been Required to Prove to a
Jury Carter’s Prior Convictions that Provided the Basis for the ACCA
Sentencing Enhancement
Finally, Carter argues, for preservation purposes, that despite the Supreme
Court’s holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 473, 120 S.Ct. 2348,
2354, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), his sentence should be overturned because (1) the
8
government failed to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt his statutory
predicate convictions for ACCA enhancement purposes, and (2) the Apprendi rule
that except for the fact of prior convictions, the government must prove to a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases the statutory maximum sentence,
has been called into question by some members of the Supreme Court.
We reiterate that the holding of Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 227, 118
S.Ct. at 1223, that a prior felony conviction is not an element of the offense for
purposes of the imposition of an enhanced sentence, remains good law after
Apprendi. United States v. Cantellano, 430 F.3d 1142, 1147 (11th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
9