United States v. Farmer, 770 F.3d 1363

In 2012, Deputy Gragg stopped Farmer for speeding on I-40; smelled burnt marijuana and obtained Farmer's consent to search, uncovering a loaded .357 under the driver’s seat.
Farmer was convicted of being a previously convicted felon unlawfully in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), sentenced to 60 months plus 3 years of supervised release.
During trial, the Government admitted Rule 404(b) evidence that in 2010 a Tulsa officer found Farmer unlawfully possessing another firearm during a motel-room search.
The district court denied suppression, ruling Farmer waived any challenge to the 2010 search due to a state guilty plea to the related weapon offense.
On appeal, the court held the plea did not waive Fourth Amendment challenges to the 2010 search; nevertheless, the 404(b) error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the 2012 possession evidence was strong.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 404(b) evidence of 2010 firearm possession was admissible.	Farmer argues the 2010 seizure was unlawful and its 404(b) use should be suppressed.	Government contends any suppression issue was waived by state plea, or at least harmless error.	Harmless error; 404(b) admission deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did Farmer's state guilty plea waive Fourth Amendment challenges to the 2010 search?	Farmer asserts plea waived non-jurisdictional defenses, including Fourth Amendment challenges, against the 2010 search.	Government argues plea precludes such challenges.	Guilty plea did not waive Fourth Amendment challenge to the 2010 search.
Were the prosecutor's closing arguments improper and reversible?	Farmer contends the closing included improper vouching and improper comments.	Government maintains remarks were fair responses to defense and not reversible.	Any improper remarks were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did the prosecutor's comments shifting burden of proof warrant mistrial or reversal?	Farmer argues certain comments improperly shifted burden to the defense.	Government contends curative admonitions were sufficient.	No mistrial; curative measures sufficient; not plain error.
Does the cumulative-error doctrine warrant reversal?	Farmer asserts cumulative errors affected the verdict.	Government argues errors, viewed cumulatively, were harmless.	No cumulative error; trial sufficient to support verdict.

United States v. Hill, 60 F.3d 672 (10th Cir. 1995) (relevance of nexus between initial search and charged offense)
Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306 (1983) (plea does not bar Fourth Amendment challenges to searches)
United States v. Davis, 750 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2014) (harmless error review for suppression rulings)
United States v. Mullikin, 758 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2014) (standard for harmless error in 404(b) context)
United States v. Anaya, 727 F.3d 1043 (10th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review framework for prosecutorial conduct)
United States v. Irvin, 682 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2012) (credibility and cure via court instructions)
United States v. DeVaughn, 694 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2012) (plea waivers; non-jurisdictional defenses)
United States v. Broomfield, 201 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2000) (vouching context; harmless error when cured)