United States v. James Holley, Jr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13697
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Police received a tip that Holley distributed large quantities of marijuana and traced him to a residence at 6203 Gray Wolf Trail; two warrantless “free-air” canine sniffs of that garage door produced alerts. A search warrant for Gray Wolf Trail yielded cash, scales, drying marijuana, ~10 lbs of marijuana, and an H&K .45 handgun found near Holley.
- A utility bill found at Gray Wolf Trail led officers to a Winterwood Lane residence; a warrantless canine sniff of that garage door produced an alert and a search revealed a large hydroponic grow (263 plants) and evidence linking Holley.
- Subsequent searches of other houses tied to Holley (McShann Road, Harvest Hill Road) uncovered another grow (273 plants), more hydroponic marijuana, grow schematics, and indicia connecting Holley and associates to the operations.
- Holley was indicted on: (1) conspiracy to commit a drug-trafficking crime (21 U.S.C. § 846) alleging conspiracy involving 100+ marijuana plants; (2) felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); and (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Holley moved to suppress evidence from the three searches, arguing the canine sniffs violated the Fourth Amendment under Florida v. Jardines; the district court denied suppression, a jury convicted on all counts, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Holley’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless canine sniffs and admissibility of evidence obtained via warrants based on those sniffs | Dog sniffs of garage doors were Fourth Amendment searches (post‑Jardines) and the warrants were tainted; suppression required | Dog sniffs did not unambiguously violate the Fourth Amendment pre‑Jardines; alternatively, Leon/Massi good‑faith exception applies | Assumed arguendo sniffs violated the Fourth Amendment but held Massi/Leon good‑faith exception applies because pre‑Jardines precedent made the conduct “close enough to the line” for objectively reasonable officers; suppression denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy count (§ 846) as charged — conspiracy to manufacture/distribute 100+ marijuana plants | Government proved conspiracy to distribute harvested marijuana, not to distribute marijuana plants as charged | Multiple facts showed Holley organized grow operations and enlisted others to assist in cultivation, supporting conspiracy to manufacture plants | Evidence was sufficient: statute pleaded conjunctively can be proved disjunctively, and record supported a conspiracy to manufacture marijuana plants |
| Sufficiency for § 924(c) — possession of firearm in furtherance of alleged drug‑plant conspiracy | Firearm was associated with possession/sale of harvested marijuana, not shown to be used in furtherance of conspiracy to manufacture plants alleged in indictment | Jury could infer Holley used the handgun to protect a multi‑house grow operation; § 924(c) can be satisfied if evidence supports any conjunctively‑pled theory | Evidence sufficient: factors (accessibility, weapon type, proximity to drugs/profits, loaded, illegal possession) supported finding the gun furthered the manufacturing conspiracy |
| Interstate commerce element for firearm offenses | Evidence only showed the handgun moved in foreign (not interstate) commerce, so interstate‑commerce element not established | Circuit precedent holds proof that firearm was manufactured out of state satisfies interstate commerce element | Foreclosed by controlling Fifth Circuit precedent: showing out‑of‑state manufacture satisfies the interstate‑commerce element; convictions stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (warrantless canine sniff at the home’s curtilage is a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrant reliance)
- United States v. Massi, 761 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2014) (warrant evidence admissible despite prior illegal conduct if prior conduct was "close enough to the line” and officers acted in objective good faith)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent bars exclusionary rule)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of sense‑enhancing technology to explore interior of home constitutes a search)
- Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (1970) (general rule on conjunctive pleading: verdict stands if evidence sufficient as to any charged act)
- United States v. Vargas‑Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2014) (standards for assessing sufficiency of the evidence on appeal)