United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Dwan Bernard Gill, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
280 F.3d 923
9th Cir.
2002
Check Treatment
Docket

*2 ROLL, Circuit Judges, and District Judge.* *3 ROLL, Judge. District Appellant appeals Dwan Bernard Gill from the district court’s denial of his mo- tion to pursuant evidence seized to a imposition search warrant and its of consecutive sentences conspiracy for to (PCP) phencyclidine distribute and at- tempted possession of PCP with intent to government distribute. The cross-appeals the district court’s ruling drug quanti- that ty proven had to beyond be a reasonable sentencing doubt for guidelines purposes. below, For the reasons set forth the dis- correctly trict court denied the motion to suppress but this matter is remanded for resentencing.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Thursday, 5, 1999, On August shortly p.m., post before 6:00 Gill entered a office near Angeles Airport, Los International carrying eight an inch square package. office, postal From the video monitor in his police officer Norbert Jaworowski noticed size and the excessive tape amount of on it. used When he went Ilia, Stephan R. Stephan Law Offices of look, post lobby to the office for a closer he Illa, Inc., Island, R. Bainbridge Washing- nervous, appeared observed that Gill ton, for the defendant-appellant-cross-ap- sideways turned apparent attempt in an pellee. cameras, avoid the visible surveillance by express sent the package mail. When Lambros, Demetra United States De- office, post left the Officer Jaworowski Justice, DC, partment of Washington, followed him outside and obtained license the plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant.

plate Upon number from Gill’s vehicle. office, returning post to the Officer Jawo- rowski examined the package and ob- that served the names of both the sender recipient and the misspelled. were He * Roll, designation. ting by The Honorable John M. Arizona, Judge District District sit- post the Kent of- Erdahl called Officer names were aliases.1

concluded recipient’s ad- and learned that fice the destination He observed for several months. had been vacant dress Kent, near Washington, package was Erdahl, who to Officer significant This was Seattle. past in the experienced instances had next ran a license Jaworowski Officer had sent to vacant packages been where check, he from which plate number picked up by then the intended houses and registered that the vehicle was learned Erdahl then drafted recipients. Officer photo of Gill. requested He also Gill. package and faxed warrant for the search inquiry, Officer Jaworowski From Attorney States it to an Assistant United *4 the the sender of that Gill was confirmed (AUSA), read it over who said he would that Gill’s address package but learned the weekend. the return address was different from 9th, Monday, August Officer Jawo- On of history A criminal check package. the Erdahl that a informed Officer rowski gang arrest and revealed a firearms Gill post called the of- “George Thomas” had then con- Officer Jaworowski connections. pack- of the fice to learn the whereabouts Erdahl postal police officer Michael tacted post the office a tele- age. gave “Thomas” Seattle, pack- Washington, secured the digit that was one different phone number Erdahl that mailed it to Officer age, and on the telephone from the number written day. same telephone “Thomas’s” call package. When returned, it was discovered that the was 6th, day, Friday, August Offi- The next number had been disconnected. package the and con- cer Erdahl received factors, Puget contacted profiling Officer Erdahl then that it met several cluded Kent, concerning the Wash- Energy Sound tape, of excessive the use including the use package and learned ington address on the labels, significant the dis- of handwritten A Tatum was the subscriber. that Venita address and tance between the sender’s Tatum disclosed history criminal check of post from which the the office’s address supervised by the De- being that she was aliases, mailed, of package was the use (DOC). The partment of Corrections and the fact shape package, of the size Erdahl that Tatum DOC informed Officer city from a “source” that was mailed prior had narcotic-related convictions telephone called the drugs.2 He then affiliations. gang tele- number listed as the sender’s that the tele- phone number and learned spoke Erdahl day, that same Officer On phone longer no in service. Officer AUSA, was urged the officer with the who drug dog for a arranged Erdahl then investigation. continue his The AUSA presence package sniff the carrier suggested contacting However, dog did not alert. mail to the addressee’s resi- drugs. The who delivered postal carrier informed Offi- are not trained to detect meth- dence. The drug dogs a woman cer Erdahl that he had seen amphetamine Accordingly, and PCP.3 Offi- earlier; days accessing the mailbox few investigation. cer Erdahl continued his same return ad- had been mailed from the package was addressed to "Siliva 1. The Kent, Washington. dress to an address in Thomas” and the return address listed "Greoge mailer as Thomas.” 3.Dogs to detect PCP or meth- are not trained substances prior express amphetamine due to the risk these day, a search of 2. On that same dogs. previous packages pose to the mail labels disclosed that description of the woman package the carrier’s of the was not supported by rea- description of Tatum in consistent with the sonable and that the length of history DOC and criminal records. the detention was unreasonable. The mo- tion to was denied. 10th, day, Tuesday, August The next completed Officer Erdahl the search war- trial, At Tatum appeared a govern- However, application rant and affidavit. ment witness and testified that she had magistrate judge was unavailable that received other mailings from inGill day and did not authorize the search war- past purchased and had a total of 103 following morning, rant until the Wednes- ounces of PCP from him. Gill was convict- day, August 11th. ed of both counts. Upon warrant, issuance of the search post-trial A hearing im- regarding opened package. Erdahl In- Officer pact Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. Spray side the was an glass Ocean 147 L.Ed.2d 435 containing yellowish bottle of a ounces (2000), was held. At hearing, because liquid, positive which fieldtested for PCP. jury had not determined quantity Gill was arrested and a search warrant drugs involved and because of the mis- *5 house,

was obtained for his where officers impression taken that PCP was a Schedule a ounce discovered one vanilla extract bot- substance, III controlled government the tle containing syringe. PCP residue and a stated that the district court was limited to a maximum years per sentence of five delivery

Officers then made a controlled count, Tatum, penalty provision the to lowest for con- using a PCP-like substance in conspiracy victions of to an distribute and at- Spray tracking Ocean bottle and a de- tempted possession for vice. After distribution of a tracking signaled the device Schedule III controlled package opened, that the had substance. been offi- cers, pursuant anticipatory to an search At sentencing, the district court conclud- warrant, entered the Tatum residence. ed that drug quantity because had not Tatum ran into the bathroom and broke jury, been submitted to the in proving in the bottle the sink. A search of her factor, drug quantity guidelines as a the approximately residence uncovered 75 government required to establish empty small and a syringe. vials quantity beyond a reasonable doubt. The only district court concluded PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND proven ounces of had been beyond PCP charged superseding Gill was indict- reasonable doubt and did not take into conspiracy ment with to distribute 100 account mailings the additional PCP to grams or attempted more of PCP and which Tatum had testified. The district possession with intent to distribute 100 court determined that under the sentenc- PCP, grams or more of violation of 21 ing guidelines, range the for 25 ounces of (b)(1)(B) 841(a)(1), §§ U.S.C. and 846. history PCP and a criminal I category was The superseding mistakenly indictment imprisonment. 78-97 months The district identified as a III PCP Schedule controlled adopted court government’s statement substance.4 that PCP was a Schedule III controlled Gill filed a motion physical statutory substance and that the maximum evidence, arguing that initial penalty years. detention was five The district court problematic impacts statutory 4. This misidentification became trolled substance maxi- sentencing because the schedule a con- mum sentence. omitted), (9th Cir.1990) (citation 227, 229 to the F.2d a 60-month sentence as imposed denied, 1207, 111 S.Ct. rt. 501 U.S. and a consecutive 37- conspiracy count ce (1991). 2802, 115 L.Ed.2d 975 attempted pos- as to the month sentence count, for a cumu- for distribution session high end of

lative sentence at Discussion guidelines. mail, letters First-class such as by the packages, protected sealed APPEAL ISSUES ON Amendment from unreasonable Fourth appeal, argues that the search of On and seizure. United States v. Van search the Fourth Amend- violated Leeuwen, 249, 251, a founded did not ment because (1970). L.Ed.2d 282 “Postal authorities of the justify the initial detention exist packages they if have may seize and detain too much time had package and because and articulable a reasonable the initial detention and elapsed between Aldaz, activity.” 921 F.2d at 229 criminal argues subsequent search. Gill also its omitted). (citations suspi A reasonable imposing the district court erred by specific, cion “is formed articulable sentences. consecutive which, objective together with facts ar- cross-appeal, government its inferences, form basis that the district court erred when gues person suspecting particular [or only quantity prov- of POP considered object] criminal [involved] detained is rather than beyond en a reasonable doubt Lopez-Soto, activity.” United States proven by preponderance quantity (cita (9th Cir.2000) 1101, 1105 *6 omitted).5 the evidence. internal quotations tions and contends that the detention of Gill A. ON MOTION RULING supported by a rea package was not TO SUPPRESS suspicion and therefore violated sonable involves the detention of This matter However, by Amendment. the Fourth suspected mail it that a controlled when is time Officer Jaworowski detained the is contained therein. substance long enough to send it to Officer package Seattle, suspicion Erdahl a reasonable Review Standard of wrapping of the existed. excessive deny A district court’s decision to the furtive of the package, movements a motion to evidence is reviewed mailer, the use of aliases as to the sender district court’s factual de novo and the addressee, fact that the send and the are reviewed for clear error. findings er at a different address than the resided Murillo, v. 255 F.3d address all contributed to a reason return (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). “A 1174 package. for detention of the able presents seizure and detention warrantless argues length that the of time question a mixed of law and fact reviewed Gill Aldaz, a search package 921 the was detained before de novo.” United States argument analysis should government did not make the as our ratio decidendi. Our 5. The concurring lays Judge opinion rejection theory, which Gould's not be understood as out, it, is not that reasonable needed rely reject and do not because we do not for an detention such as took unintrusive theory urged only because it was not the it place significantly delay here that does not the briefs. delivery. theory We therefore do not use that warrant was obtained was unreasonable. contacted the worker who deliv- pack- Gill contends the fact that the ered mail to the address to which the by express yet mail age was sent is anoth- package being was sent. One of the inves- length er reason of the why delay was tigators testified that 1930 he believed that unreasonable. regular postal employee charged with delivering recipient’s the mail to the ad- Here, package was mailed on did dress not work on Fridays and could Thursday opened late afternoon and was not be contacted until Monday. Nor pursuant to a search warrant on the fol insignificant that the investigation began lowing Wednesday morning. Although the end of one completed week and was at delay particu Gill maintains was beginning following of the week. The larly egregious package because the was AUSA indicated that the search warrant mail, by express sent this Court has stated application would be reviewed over the that “the main Fourth Amendment inter magistrate weekend and a judge was not est a mailed attaches to the available to issue the search warrant on contents, privacy speed of its not the with Tuesday, August 10th. which it is delivered.” United States (9th Cir.1984) Hillison, mail, Even with express predomi- Gill’s (nine reasonable) (citation delay hour omit nant privacy interest was of the ted). Leeuwen, See also Van package and merely prompt not delivery. (29 253, 90 S.Ct. 1029 hour detention of facts, On these delay not unrea- packages by sent first class mail not un sonable. reasonable); Aldaz, 921 F.2d at 229-31

(five unreasonable). day delay not B. SENTENCING RULINGS places great reliance on United At sentencing, the district court was Dass, (9th States v. 414-15 with a guidelines range faced of 78-97 Cir.1988), where this Court ruled that de- imprisonment months and what was repre- lays ranging days from 7 to 23 were unrea- parties sented to be two convictions Dass, sonable. suspicious packages at carrying statutory punishment maximum post various Hawaii offices were collected *7 years of five each. The im- district court dog presence for sniffs and once the of posed imprison- sentence of 60 months detected, marijuana was the packages conspiracy ment for the count and a 37- were detained until search warrants could imprisonment month consecutive term of be sup- obtained. The district court attempted possession as to the with intent evidence, pressed finding that “the de- to distribute count. (36 lays could have been much shorter argues Gill that the district court erred hours) if police diligently.” had acted in imposing consecutive sentences Dass, 849 F.2d at 415. This Court af- matter because the exceeded the firmed the district sentences court. year were, statutory five maximum and This case bears little resemblance to therefore, in Apprendi. violation of Dass. Although argues that the inves- tigation “leisurely was conducted at a government cross-appeals The on the pace,” it objectively is difficult to ground erroneously view this that the district court investigation leisurely. as applied The offi- the wrong quantum proof of leads, cers tracked down various sentencing deciding confirmed the amount of PCP vehicle, records, utility, motor and criminal which responsible. govern- for Gill is The numbers, verified phone addresses and ment also seeks rectification of the incor- Cir.1979) (misidentification (10th 942, 943 applied by the statutory maximum rect III drug amphetamine Schedule of district court. error). Therefore, the correct harmless Review 1. Standard of conspiracy to dis- maximum for statutory attempted possession tribute PCP and for properly ap the district court Whether years to distribute is 20 of PCP with intent proof of deter plied the correct burden on each count. U.S.C. imprisonment and whether mining the of PCP quantity 841(b)(1)(C). applied Appren § properly court the district law, are reviewed of which questions di are applied court district The Field Ironworkers de novo. California to the offenses statutory maximum wrong Co., Sayles & Pension Trust v. Loomis Using twenty year presented here. (citation (9th Cir.2001) 1036, 1042 maximum, 97-month sen statutory Gill’s omitted). Al that maximum.

tence falls within stacking sentences was Apprendi though Sentences of Gill’s —Consecutive Buckland, permissible, United States in this mat imposing sentences 99-30285, 2002 WL at *8-*9 No. court, ter, urging at the the district 2002) (en (9th banc), Jan.18, it was not Cir. counsel, conclud government defense Apprendi issue necessary. Whatever for the statutory maximum ed assuming have existed might otherwise conspiracy to distribute PCP offenses pre statutory maximum is not year five with in attempted possession of PCP However, in this case.7 because sented years imprison tent to distribute was five below, appropriate it is to re the errors each count. This determination ment on consis resentencing mand this matter for assumption was based on incorrect statutory maximum tent with the correct III controlled was a Schedule PCP drug-trafficking offenses. PCP substance.6 appeal acknowledge All sides 3.Burden of Proof II sub that PCP is a Schedule controlled district government argues charged and stance. The indictment applied wrong proof standard of understanding judge the full case was tried with drug quantity guide- determining That that the substance involved was PCP. noted, previously As purposes. in the indictment as lines PCP misidentified only con- district court ruled that it would drug prejudicial III was not a Schedule proven beyond a quantity sider the of PCP the defendant. United States Green (5th wood, Applying that stan- reasonable doubt. 1471-73 Cir. *8 1992) (mischaracterization dard, only the court found that methamphet of the district containing grams 25 of intercepted er bottle drug amine as Schedule III harmless Kaiser, ror); and intended for Tatum v. 599 F.2d PCP sent United States 490, Although provides Apprendi, § 7. 530 U.S. at U.S.C. 812 that PCP 6. 21 narcotic, 2348, States Supreme is a Schedule III the United Court held that "[o]ther General, pursuant conviction, Attorney to 21 U.S.C. prior any fact the fact of a than 811(a), upgraded § a Schedule II con- PCP to beyond penalty for a that increases the crime § substance. See 21 C.F.R. 1308.12. trolled statutory prescribed maximum must be III Had Gill’s offenses involved Schedule beyond jury, proved submitted to a and substance, statutory controlled maximum doubt.” imprisonment per years would have been five 841(b)(1)(D). § count. 21 U.S.C.

931 remand, beyond a reasonable On the district court proven had been should apply preponderance government urges that of the evidence doubt. in resentencing determining quantity matter be remanded for standard of remand, apply responsible. the district court PCP for which Gill is that on preponderance of the evidence stan- CONCLUSION in- deciding quantity dard in of PCP volved. rulings The district court’s regarding the motion to evidence af- are circuit court decisions Post-Apprendi firmed but this matter is remanded for jury uniformly hold where the has not resentencing opinion. consistent with this quantity drugs decided the involved and PART, AFFIRMED IN REMANDED drug sentencing court must determine IN PART. guidelines purposes, long so quantity imposed the sentence does not exceed GOULD, Judge, concurring: Circuit maximum, the statutory quantum opinion applies Our the “reasonable and proof judge apply prepon should is a articulable, suspicion activity” of criminal Buckland, derance of the evidence. See in evaluating postal test authorities’ 277 at 1183-85. See also F.3d United govern- detention of mail in this case. The Fields, 1041, States v. 251 F.3d 1043-44 briefing argument ment oral (D.C.Cir.2001); Jones, United States v. expressly accepted that the reasonable (7th 645, Cir.2001); 245 F.3d 651 United applied postal standard to the (1st Caba, 98, 241 States v. F.3d 101 Cir. investigatory authorities’ actions. Reason- White, 2001); v. 240 F.3d United States shown, opinion able as the (2nd 127, Cir.2001); v. 136 United States Nonetheless, explains. the standard to be (10th Heckard, 1222, 1223-36 F.3d 238 Cir. applied may significance have other Lewis, 2001); v. United States 236 I suggest cases. the reasonable sus- (8th 948, Cir.2001); v. 950 United States picion required standard is not Cir.2000), (3rd Williams, 858, 235 F.3d 860-865 mail authorities detain where the deten- — denied, -, rt. U.S. ce significant- tion is unintrusive and does not 49, (2001); 151 L.Ed.2d 19 S.Ct. Unite ly delay delivery. Kinter, 192, States v. 235 F.3d 198-201 (4th denied, Cir.2000), 937, mail, people they reasonably cert. 532 U.S. When send 1393, (2001); expect 149 L.Ed.2d 316 that it will not be searched and that S.Ct. Munoz, 410, United States v. 233 F.3d it will reach its intended destination (6th Cir.2000); 413-14 other about the same time takes Cir.2000), (11th 825, If Nealy, parcel singled 232 F.3d 829 n. 3 mail. a letter or out — denied, -, inspected, rt. 122 and but is still delivered when U.S. ce 552, (2001); been, 151 L.Ed.2d 428 other mail would have then no “sei- S.Ct. United 160, Doggett, place meaning 230 F.3d 164-66 zure” has taken within the States (5th denied, Cir.2000); cert. the Fourth to the Amendment United (2001).8 if 148 L.Ed.2d 1014 Constitution. The same is true S.Ct. States dan, Cir.2001), (9th Although recognized no this Court has that the 927-28 *9 may change proof burden of to clear and disproportionate present such effect is here. convincing de evidence if the district court’s The district court’s determination that Gill is termination of enhancements has an extreme only grams would accountable for 103 of PCP upon ly disproportionate effect the sentence guidelines a increase. result in four level see, imposed, e.g., to be United States v. Jor

932 never Van where, precedents have read as Our delay. And is a minimal there reasonable temporarily require a Leeuwen to here, placed is parcel a of mail. room, being short, to left detentions opposed as for unintrusive separate 692, Hillison, is de mail, privacy intrusion 733 the v. F.2d with other In United States a minimis, Such (9th Cir.1984), and is not a “seizure.” only that we stated 695-96 a “sei- only can intrusion become probable modest require not Leeuwen did Van delayed. significantly is if the mail zure” say not detentions. We did cause for such procedures investigatory expedited When as required that reasonable suspension processing of cause a limited standard nonintrusive applicable the Fourth mail, underlying the reasons investigation. The of mail for detentions against seizures protections Amendment’s Terry a itself has said that Supreme Court arise do not apply. These reasons do not re- weapons, protective search which cause a procedures until or unless intru- suspicion, is more quires reasonable delivery, invoking pro- delay substantial of mail detention. See type than this sive seizures, or unreasonable against tection 253, Leeuwen, 90 S.Ct. 397 U.S. Van intrusive, in- become procedures until Aldaz, v. 921 1029. In United States unreasonable protection against voking (9th Cir.1990), 227, we said that 229 searches.1 may packages “seize and detain authorities a only has held that Supreme Court if a reasonable and articulable they have Fourth trigger significant intrusion will However, activity.” suspicion of criminal detentions protection. Short Amendment suspicion standard Aldaz’s con- genuine privacy no packages raise a applied only to deten- would been have causes “no Detention of cerns. delivery.2 delay the date tion that would ‘to be secure’ right invasion of the possible 419, England, houses, effects’ papers, and ‘persons, in the (9th Cir.1992), rejected explicitly 421 we the Fourth Amendment protected by of mail any that detention the contention sei- searches and against unreasonable “seizure,” Amendment counts a Fourth Leeuwen, States v. Van zures.” United is not that a brief detention and we held 1029, 252, 249, 25 90 S.Ct. package is “seizure” when the flown (1970). in Van The Court 282 L.Ed.2d plane would on the same destination signif- “[t]he made clear that Leeuwen detention. have carried absent inwas Amendment interest Fourth icant they may inspect mail as Investigators mail; and privacy of first-class cur- any Fourth Amendment wish without not or invaded privacy was disturbed tailment, inspection does not long as the so approval magistrate of the until “search,” so as it is long amount to 90 1029. Id. at S.Ct. obtained.” station, they transferring were to an sent recently reminded Supreme Court has 1. The Anchorage a rule are no in- the reasons for instead of inspector us that when may apply. See longer present, the rule not Although packages destination. tended Davis, Zadvydas U.S. 533 separate pouch, we off in a were cordoned 2491, 2503, (2001) (quoting 653 150 L.Ed.2d they have their would not reached noted that Coke, legis ipse cessat "Cessante ratione Lord inspec- any when sooner than destination legal rule no rationale of the a lex "—"The Aldaz, F.2d at 231. them. tor received longer being applicable, rule itself no only assessed the reasonable- Because Aldaz longer applies”). mail, delay it is in the consistent ness of the Leeuwen, required Van rule with the packages from an concerned sent Aldaz mail service S.Ct. 1029. bush town that received U.S. at Alaskan packages flown to only by were air. After *10 quickly conducted so that it enough does (upholding building inspections because “it not become a seizure by significantly any de- is doubtful that canvassing other tech- nique would laying delivery3. Inspectors results”). the date of achieve acceptable may without more particular a choose Only if delivery the date becomes de- package to detain in order to examine the layed should suspicion reasonable be re- addressee or return address and investi- quired to continue the detainment or in- further, gate as Officer Jaworowski did spection. Here, Officer Jaworowski had Choate, here. See United States v. reasonable initially to detain the (9th Cir.1978) F.2d 165 (holding that look- package. But he did not at all need it for ing information on contained the outside the minimal intrusion that occurred. He does implicate kept mail not the Fourth the package his office and investi- Amendment). gated addresses, Postal may authorities the phone numbers, and methods, use scientific such names on the x-rays, irra- outside of the package. He diation, processes, or other mailed the package that same day detect or to In- spector Seattle, eradicate Erdahl materials mail the may package’s the destination area. pose post grave a risk to office was society.4 able Authorities to deliver could, package the next example, day. Only for irradiate all the mail in if the package likely to miss its antici- particular facility, because this will not pated Friday delivery by significant date delay delivery beyond any other piece of degree would Jaworowski and Erdahl need location, mail sent from that and because to show “a reasonable and articulable sus- may irradiation be only by means picion of criminal activity.”5 which to achieve See objectives. certain Court, v. Municipal Camara Postal authorities have discretion with- (1967) 18 L.Ed.2d 930 out constitutional restraint to take reason- occurred, 3. If a Indeed, search or a seizure may it has society others. our must consider the allowed, be only still but when it is "reason- possibility biological agents, chemical or able” under the Fourth anthrax, Amendment. sarin, When toxins, including or other and reasonableness, requires one considers it con- destruction, perhaps weapons other of mass degree sideration of the of cause for the may by be transmitted mail. No doubt there or search cause, seizure. required And the level of limits, general are but as a rule the Constitu- probable such as for a cause search or tion does not bind the hands of authori- ” "Terry stop varies way in a prohibit ties that would them from degree by govern- with intrusion taking investiga- reasonable and nonintrusive person’s privacy ment on the and other inter- tory steps protect or curative public. protected by ests the Fourth Amendment. none But of these implicated interests are receiving package 5.After Friday, on Post- postal inspectors, postal police, when or other further, Inspector al delayed delivery Erdahl authorities examine the outside of an envel- package was not received ope or assess its characteristics without in- designated following addressee until Wed- truding private is, communications. There However, nesday. by the time Erdahl had example, expectation pri- no reasonable delayed package’s delivery past Friday, vacy designated in the return address on a postal inspectors only not had reasonable sus- letter, may freely and it be investigated so further, investigate picion to likely but had long as the investigation duration of is suffi- probable cause to seize the or to ciently brief that no seizure occurs. learned, They search its contents. had (or of) Despite might addition to say previously some the other factors because ad- science, known, arts, law, recipient's vances of coopera- that the and the address had been cultures, months, many tive efforts of all vacant for several is not safe in not un- persons may the world. Some drug seek to use common mailings are sent to vacant innocent mechanisms like mails to harm addresses. *11 that do steps curative or investigative able do not privacy

not intrude this Although mail. delay

significantly sus- grounds for presented

case package, the PCP-filled to detain

picion those presented government require not law did our

grounds, deten- investigatory for limited

showing view, which point out I write

tion. case of a different when pertinent

may be and detention investigation service presented. individual, Les dba KELLY, an A.

Leslie Kelly En Publications, Les dba

Kelly Gold, me the

terprises, dba Show

Plaintiff-Appellant, CORPORATION, An SOFT

ARRIBA Corporation, Defendant-

Illinois

Appellee. 00-55521.

No. Appeals, Court

Ninth Circuit. 10, 2001. Sept. Submitted

Argued and 6, 2002. Feb.

Filed