United States v. Latorey Earvin, 682 F.3d 502

Appellants Stubblefield, Spigner, and Earvin conspired to cash counterfeit checks using fake IDs; they pled guilty to Counts 1–3, including conspiracy and aggravated identity theft; evidence came from a vehicle search during a narcotics stop showing multiple false licenses and counterfeit checks.
Dragnet search uncovered 20 false Texas licenses and 39 counterfeit checks, plus Wal-Mart maps and 30 identity data records.
Earvin, Spigner, and Stubblefield moved to suppress the seized evidence; the district court denied suppression.
At sentencing, a two-level, store-victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2) was applied for multiple Wal-Mart stores; the district court treated each store as a separate victim.
On appeal, Earvin and Spigner challenge suppression; Stubblefield challenges the sentencing enhancement as procedurally unreasonable.
Court affirms suppression denials for Earvin and Spigner, vacates Stubblefield’s sentence, and remands for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Arrow’s drug-detection dog dog sniff and related stops/searches were valid under the Fourth Amendment.	Earvin argues extended stop and unreliable dog tainted search	Earvin contends dog reliability and extended detention invalidates seizure	Yes; dog reliable, no improper extension; suppression denied for Earvin
Whether the envelope search and resulting arrests were supported by probable cause.	Earvin and co-defendants contend lack of probable cause for arrests	Prosecution argues Arrow’s alert plus contraband indicators established probable cause	Yes; probable cause supported and arrest valid
Whether the district court properly applied the 2-level Victim enhancement for multiple Wal-Mart stores under § 2B1.1(b)(2).	Stubblefield argues only Wal-Mart corporation is a victim; stores are not.	Government argues each store suffered a loss and is a victim	Vacate; stores not victims; remand for resentencing
Whether Spigner had standing to challenge suppression independently of Earvin.	Government contends lack of standing; merits subsumed under Earvin's	Spigner’s standing assumed; arguments fail on merits	Affirm suppression denial on merits; standing not outcome-determinative

United States v. Bell, 555 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2009) (standards for dog-sniff and detention duration respected)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop okay if no extension of stop)
United States v. Crotinger, 928 F.2d 203 (6th Cir. 1991) (probable cause search of containers in vehicle)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (searches of containers within a lawful vehicle search)
United States v. Diaz, 25 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 1994) (dog-handler credibility suffices for reliability proof)
United States v. Howard, 621 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2010) (probable cause standard in evaluating seizures)
United States v. Yagar, 404 F.3d 967 (6th Cir. 2005) (victims under § 2B1.1(b)(2) require actual loss; reimbursement matters)
United States v. Icaza, 492 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (store-level losses vs. corporation-wide loss under § 2B1.1)
United States v. Erpenbeck, 532 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2008) (supports Yagar exception analysis for temporary losses)
United States v. Pham, 545 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2008) (reimbursement can affect victim status under 2B1.1)
United States v. Abiodun, 536 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (reimbursement and time/effort considerations in victim analysis)
United States v. Lee, 427 F.3d 881 (11th Cir. 2005) (victim status where reimbursement may be partial or contested)
United States v. Stepanian, 570 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2009) (contrasted with Yagar on victim determination)