United States v. Goncalves, 642 F.3d 245

Confidential informant informs officers Goncalves sells large crack quantities in Providence/Pawtucket; drug storage at a Providence apartment and Pawtucket residence; Lincoln Continental used for deliveries; Goncalves previously convicted of weapons and pending cocaine trafficking charge; police obtained warrants for Providence apartment, Pawtucket house, and Goncalves’ person; vehicle search occurred after a high‑speed chase and arrest in Pawtucket.
Controlled crack purchases corroborated informant’s tips; vehicle (Lincoln) used for deliveries; drugs and gun concealed in the Lincoln discovered during the search; additional drugs found at Pawtucket and Providence locations.
Goncalves was indicted on three drug counts and two gun counts based on seized contraband and gun; suppression motion denied at district court; trial resulted in convictions on all five counts.
Goncalves challenges the car search as unlawful under the automobile exception and challenges sentencing considerations under the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) and related savings statute; district court imposed concurrent and consecutive sentences for drug and gun counts.
The majority upholds the automobile exception search for the car in the driveway based on probable cause and flight evidence; remands for resentencing on two drug counts due to misapplied mandatory minimums prior to FSA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the driveway car search was valid under the automobile exception	Goncalves argues no probable cause for engine/gas cap search	Goncalves contends Coolidge precludes driveway searches without a warrant	Automobile exception applies; probable cause supports search of interior and concealed compartments
Whether the FSA applies retroactively to pre-enactment conduct	Goncalves seeks reduced penalties under FSA for pre‑enactment crime	Government relies on savings statute 1 U.S.C. § 109; no express retroactive direction for FSA	FSA not retroactive to pre-enactment conduct under § 109; remand for resentencing not required for Counts 2 and 3
Whether the penalties for the crack counts should be adjusted after FSA	Goncalves would receive lower mandatory minimums	Savings statute governs penalties based on conduct time	Counts 2 and 3 vacated; remand for resentencing on those counts; 10-year minimum and 0 for other counts established by statute
Whether the use of § 851 enhancements raises a jury-trial issue	Enhancement requires jury finding	Existing circuit law permits judicial findings under Almendarez-Torres/Harris line	No error; § 851 enhancements upheld
Whether sentencing errors regarding 924(c) and other counts require remand	Consecutive/multi-count rules misapplied	Abbott v. United States controls the 924(c) issue; no reallocation needed	Remand for correction of two drug-count minimums; otherwise affirmed

United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (probable cause justifies search of vehicle and contents)
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1991) (probable cause for vehicle search extends to its contents)
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (U.S. 1999) (search of one item in a vehicle permits examining other compartments)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971) (driveway searches under automobile exception debated; distinct facts apply)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (lesser privacy interest in vehicles supports vehicle searches)
Carney v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1985) (regulation and expectation of privacy in vehicles underpin searches)
Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1964) (savings clause cannot create rights where Congress did not intend)
Chambers v. United States, 291 U.S. 217 (U.S. 1934) (savings statute and post‑repeal punishment power)
Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (Supreme Court 2010) (controls issues on 924(c) consecutive sentences)
United States v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (U.S. 1974) (savings statute applied to parole eligibility considerations)