UNITED STATES

v.

ROLANDO ANTUAIN WILLIAMSON

BRASHER, Circuit Judge: Rolando Williamson, Hendarius Archie, Ishmywel Gregory, and Adrien Taylor appeal their convictions concerning several drug distribution and conspiracy charges. Williamson argues, among other things, that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress the results of warrants to search a house and apartment. Probable cause for the warrant to search the house was

based, in part, on evidence gathered by pole cameras positioned outside it. He contends that the warrantless use of these pole cameras—when focused on his home and recording non-stop—violated the Fourth Amendment. Archie argues that the district court erred in allowing improper opinion testimony from a case agent. Gregory challenges the district court&#x²⁷;s finding as to the type and amount of drugs attributable to him at sentencing. And each defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his respective conspiracy conviction.

We conclude that only Williamson and Gregory have meritorious arguments. As to the pole cameras, we hold that their use did not violate Williamson&#x²⁷;s Fourth Amendment rights. The pole cameras surveilled areas exposed to the public, and the fact that they recorded non-stop is of little relevance—the Constitution does not forbid the government from using technology to conduct lawful investigations more efficiently. We conclude that the case agent&#x²⁷;s challenged opinion testimony—proper or improper—did not affect Archie&#x²⁷;s substantial rights because the testimony concerned the distribution of methamphetamine and Archie was convicted only of the distribution of marijuana. We hold, after a thorough review of the record, that the evidence was sufficient as to each defendant&#x²⁷;s conspiracy conviction. But, because conspiracy is a lesser included offense to Williamson&#x²⁷;s additional conviction of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, Williamson&#x²⁷;s conspiracy conviction must be vacated. Lastly, in light of the jury&#x²⁷;s drugquantity finding, Gregory&#x²⁷;s sentence of⁴⁰ years is above the statutory maximum. Accordingly, we affirm each conviction, except

Williamson&#x²⁷;s conspiracy conviction, which we vacate, and we affirm each sentence, except Gregory&#x²⁷;s, which we vacate in its entirety and remand for resentencing, consistent with this opinion.

I.

A.

Throughout 2019, the police investigated Rolando Williamson, Ishmywel Gregory, Adrien Taylor, and Hendarius Archie for drug trafficking in and around Birmingham, Alabama. Specifically, the government believed that Williamson, Gregory, Taylor, and Archie were working together to sell heroin, cocaine, meth, and marijuana.

In April of 2019, the government executed a controlled buy between Gregory and a cooperating witness. The witness agreed to purchase half an ounce of cocaine for $650. The government recorded phone calls planning the controlled buy and recorded audio of the controlled buy itself. As a result of this controlled buy, the government applied for and received authorization to intercept communications from Gregory. One such communication concerned Gregory arranging to meet with a person so that Gregory could pay him approximately $30,000 that he owed for meth.

The government also executed two separate controlled buys between Taylor and a confidential source. The first occurred in April of 2019, when the confidential source purchased two ounces of meth from Taylor for $600. The second occurred in June of 2019, when the confidential source purchased three ounces of meth from

Taylor for $870. In between these controlled buys, the government applied for and obtained authorization to intercept communications from Taylor. Several of the intercepted calls concerned drug trafficking, and, in particular, cocaine and meth.

As part of the government&#x²⁷;s continuing investigation, Agent Wayne Gerhardt used two pole cameras to observe Williamson&#x²⁷;s home—one overlooking the front of his house and the other overlooking the backyard. Both pole cameras were installed in October of 2018 without a warrant, ran continuously through August of 2019, and recorded soundless footage of activity in their range of vision. The cameras could view only what was visible from the public street in front of the house and the public alley behind it.

A cooperating informant—led by Agent Gerhardt—called Williamson and set up a purchase of narcotics. The purchase took place inside Williamson&#x²⁷;s home in June of 2019. Agent Gerhardt used pole cameras to record the witness arriving at the premises and an audio recording device—attached to the witness—to record the transaction itself. After meeting with Williamson, the witness exited the home with a sample size of heroin mixed with fentanyl. Agents applied for and obtained authorization to intercept communications from a cell phone used by Williamson.

In August of 2019, officers arrested Williamson. At the time of his arrest, he was in possession of two handguns—one in his car and one on his person—a small amount of marijuana, and approximately $13,968 in cash. The same day, officers executed a search warrant at Williamson&#x²⁷;s home and recovered digital scales, plastic

bags often used for narcotics, a pistol, ammunition, marijuana inside a suitcase, several bags of marijuana, and meth. To support probable cause for the home warrant, Agent Gerhardt&#x²⁷;s warrant application relied on pole camera footage, the controlled buy from June of 2019, and subsequent transactions. Specifically, Gerhardt&#x²⁷;s supporting affidavit provided evidence—detailing, among other things, intercepted phone calls, the contents of collected, abandoned trash, and observations Gerhardt and others had—that Williamson was engaged in drug-related transactions with at least four others during the period between the controlled purchase and the application for the warrant.

About two months later, officers executed a search warrant at Williamson&#x²⁷;s apartment and recovered⁵,700 grams of marijuana, 135 grams of fentanyl and heroin mixed together, four firearms,¹,400 rounds of ammunition, $95,000 in cash, and $45,000 worth of jewelry. They also recovered items bearing Williamson&#x²⁷;s name, including a passport and plane ticket. The officers supported probable cause for the apartment warrant with an informant&#x²⁷;s statement that he had observed Williamson storing money and personalized, expensive jewelry in the apartment—specifically, Williamson&#x²⁷;s $30,000 gold necklace and “RAW” pendant, which he purchased with no known source of income. As with the home warrant&#x²⁷;s supporting affidavit, the apartment warrant&#x²⁷;s supporting affidavit detailed intercepted communications concerning drug trafficking and recounted physical surveillance of the residence.

Based in part on pertinent interceptions of Williamson&#x²⁷;s communications, the government began intercepting Archie&#x²⁷;s communications and listened for approximately³⁰ days. Several of those communications concerned drug trafficking. For example, at least two such calls concerned marijuana. Officers eventually arrested Archie at his home. Inside the home, officers found 74.6 grams of marijuana, a handgun, and a digital scale.

B.

A grand jury indicted Williamson, Taylor, Gregory, and Archie of multiple counts. Williamson was charged with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (Count¹); conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, 50 grams or more of meth, and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana (Count²); possession with intent to distribute marijuana (Count 3); the use and carry of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime (Count⁴); possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, 500 grams or more of meth, and a detectable amount of marijuana (Count⁵); possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin,⁴⁰ grams or more of fentanyl, and a detectable amount of marijuana (Count⁶); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count⁷); and distribution of heroin and fentanyl (Count⁸). Taylor was charged with conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin and 50 grams or more of meth (Count²); distribution of 50 grams or more of meth (Count¹¹); and distribution of five grams or more of meth (Count¹²). Both Williamson and Taylor were

also charged with the use of a communication facility to facilitate drug trafficking crimes (Counts³⁰–44 and 48–49 for Williamson and 17-29 for Taylor). For his part, Gregory was charged with conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride and 50 grams or more of meth (Count²) and distribution of cocaine hydrochloride (Count¹³). And Archie was charged with conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, five kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana (Count²).

Later, Williamson and Archie were indicted again in separate cases. Williamson was charged with possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Archie was charged with possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

The defendants were tried jointly and the charges from each separate case were consolidated for trial. At trial, several witnesses testified that they were involved in drug trafficking with the defendants. Isiah Thomas testified that he sold cocaine supplied by Williamson for “five or six” years and that they had been dealing drugs together for even longer. Errick Daniel, Derrick Bland, and Leanthony Gillins lived at Williamson&#x²⁷;s home and served as "middlemen" alongside Thomas—meaning that Williamson would supply them with drugs that they then sold to others. The government presented evidence that Williamson received kilo quantities of cocaine that he stored at his house, that he had suitcases full of marijuana stored at his apartment, and that he obtained a kilo or two of

heroin monthly for resale from Detroit. Williamson relied on two men—“Shezzy” and “Tuff”—to drive the heroin from Detroit to Birmingham. When others were arrested, Williamson would front them money so that they could obtain legal counsel. Williamson described himself as “everybody&#x²⁷;s backbone" following his arrest.

The government also presented recordings of five telephone calls that Williamson made. They concern (1) Williamson checking in with Darrius Johnson about his stock of drugs; (2) Williamson confirming with Gillins that Williamson is “gonna still bring it"; (3) Williamson setting up a drug deal with Thomas; (4) Williamson and Johnson discussing the fact that Johnson had been stopped by police and his truck had been searched soon after leaving Williamson&#x²⁷;s house; and (5) Williamson and Tevion Poole discussing the quality of two different strains of marijuana.

Demarcus Whitt testified that he had been dealing drugs with Gregory since approximately 2017. At first, Whitt was buying meth from Gregory—starting with ounces a few times a week and progressing to kilo quantities. Then in 2019, Gregory lost his source and Whitt began selling him kilos of meth. The government presented evidence that a cooperating witness met with Gregory and purchased cocaine. The transaction was recorded. Other evidence established that Gregory dealt drugs with Isaac Robinson who, in turn, was a source for Williamson, selling him both meth and marijuana.

Thomas testified that he sold Taylor heroin. Likewise, Kenneth Johnson testified that he and Taylor began dealing drugs as

early as 2012, "split up for some years,” and then resumed in 2018. Taylor would supply Johnson with meth and heroin that Johnson would then sell to others. Johnson testified that he once saw Taylor with "like a pound” of meth. Both Johnson and Thomas&#x²⁷;s testimonies were corroborated by either phone calls or text messages. The government also presented evidence that a cooperating witness met with Taylor and purchased meth. The transaction was recorded.

Thomas further testified that Archie was a middleman to whom Williamson supplied three pounds of marijuana once or twice a week. Thomas observed these transactions and testified that they occurred over the course of about two years. The government presented evidence that, when Archie was arrested, he was in possession of 74.6 grams of marijuana, a handgun, and a digital scale. Throughout the investigation, agents intercepted calls between co-conspirators related to drug trafficking, including calls from each defendant.

Agent Gerhardt testified that the phrase "a cup of ice"—as used on a phone call between Archie and another person—referred to “one ounce or one-half ounce quantities of methamphetamine.” Agent Gerhardt provided this testimony as a fact witness, not as an expert witness. He explained that his conclusion as to the quantity of meth being discussed was based on the purchase price mentioned during the call and his general knowledge of drug prices. Archie objected that "if they wanted to elicit what a cup was from Agent Gerhardt, that should have come in . . . his expert testimony

that he knew that to be a certain amount or a certain weight." The district court ultimately overruled Archie&#x²⁷;s objection, concluding that the testimony was admissible as lay testimony.

The district court charged the jury in a manner consistent with the pattern jury instruction. As to Williamson&#x²⁷;s continuing criminal enterprise count, the district court charged the jury that it must find, among other things, that Williamson engaged in at least three related violations of the federal controlled substances laws with at least five other people. It specified that "it doesn&#x²⁷;t matter" whether those five persons are named in the superseding indictment or whether the same five participated in each crime or participated at different times. Williamson requested that the jury instruction be amended to include the statement that a “mere buyerseller relationship will not satisfy this requirement.” The district court rejected Williamson&#x²⁷;s request, finding that the pattern jury instructions already "contemplated” the substance of Williamson&#x²⁷;s amendment and that going further would run the risk of confusing the jury.

The jury convicted on most counts. It convicted Williamson of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (Count¹); conspiracy to distribute or possession with intent to distribute heroin weighing 100 grams or more, meth weighing 50 grams or more, fentanyl weighing⁴⁰ grams or more, and marijuana weighing 100 kilograms or more (Count²); possession with intent to distribute marijuana (Count 3); possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime (Count¹ in²:20-cr-405-ACA-JHE); possession

with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, 500 grams or more of meth, and marijuana (less than 100 kilograms) (Count⁵); possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin,⁴⁰ grams or more of fentanyl, and marijuana (less than 100 kilograms) (Count⁶); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count⁷); distribution of heroin and fentanyl (Count⁸); and the use of a communication facility to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (Counts³⁴, 35, 39, 40, and⁴¹). It convicted Taylor of distributing meth weighing 50 grams or more (Counts² and¹¹) and meth weighing five grams or more (Count¹²)—and the use of a communication facility to commit a drug trafficking crime (Counts²⁰–22). It convicted Gregory of distributing cocaine weighing less than 500 grams (Counts² and¹³). And it convicted Archie of conspiracy to distribute marijuana weighing 100 kilograms or more (Count²); possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance (Count¹ in²:20-cr-151-ACA-JHE); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count² in²:20-cr-151-ACA-JHE).

As relevant to this appeal, Williamson was sentenced for a term of life as to Counts¹, 2, and⁵; 60 months as to Count 3; 480 months as to Count⁶; 240 months as to Count⁸; and 48 months as to each of Counts³⁴, 35, 39, 40, and⁴¹, separately, with each count to be served concurrently with the other; all followed by 60 months as to Count⁷, consecutively. At sentencing, counsel expressly noted that "Count² is a lesser included offense of Count¹ and groups in. But I understand that it&#x²⁷;s life is the guideline."

Gregory was sentenced to 480 months as to Count² and 360 months as to Count¹³, separately, with each count to be served concurrently with the other. Before sentencing, a presentence report was prepared that recommended a base offense level of³⁸ due to the amount of drugs attributable to Gregory, including²⁰ kilograms of heroin and 100 kilograms of meth. Gregory objected, arguing that he should only be held responsible for the 14.22 grams of cocaine hydrochloride that the jury attributed to him. The district court credited the testimony of the government&#x²⁷;s trial witnesses as to the drug quantity attributable to Gregory and ultimately overruled his objection “based on the evidence as a whole." This appeal followed.

II.

The defendants raise six issues on appeal. First, Williamson argues that two search warrants—one for a home and one for an apartment—lacked probable cause because the home warrant was supported by unconstitutional pole camera footage and both warrants were supported by stale information. He further contends that the apartment warrant was an unlawful general warrant. Second, each defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his respective conspiracy conviction. Third, Williamson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, and the use of a communication facility to commit a drug trafficking crime.

Fourth, Archie argues that the district court erred when it allowed improper opinion testimony from Agent Gerhardt as to the meaning of the phrase "a cup of ice.” Fifth, Williamson argues that, as to his continuing criminal enterprise conviction, the district court erred by not instructing the jury that it must agree about which five individuals Williamson organized or that “a mere buyer-seller relationship" does not satisfy the conviction&#x²⁷;s requirements. Lastly, Gregory challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We address each issue in turn.

A.

We start with Williamson&#x²⁷;s challenges to the warrants authorizing searches of the home and apartment. First, as to the home warrant, Williamson argues that the pole camera footage used to generate probable cause constituted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He further contends that the home warrant&#x²⁷;s supporting affidavits relied on stale information. Second, as to the apartment warrant, Williamson argues that its supporting affidavits relied on stale information and that the warrant itself constituted an unlawful general warrant.

1.

We begin with the home warrant. The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” A search occurs in two ways: when the government "obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally

protected area,” United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 407 n.3 (2012), and "when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed,” United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 712 (1984) (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984)). Here, Williamson does not contend that a trespass occurred. Instead, he asserts that the pole cameras invaded his reasonable expectation of privacy because they were focused on his home and recorded non-stop. We disagree.

First, we cannot say Williamson had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas surveilled—the front area and backyard of his home—because they were both exposed to the public. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” Id. The front area, by all accounts, was entirely visible to the public. And the back area, Williamson himself concedes, is not fully enclosed. The magistrate judge expressly found that “an observer standing [on a public road] could see into the Arlington Avenue House&#x²⁷;s back yard, with her view obstructed only by some overgrown vegetation." And Williamson does not challenge that factual finding as clearly erroneous.

Williamson nonetheless argues that the Colorado Supreme Court&#x²⁷;s decision in People v. Tafoya, 494 P. 3d 613 (Colo. 2021), supports his position. But we disagree. In Tafoya, police mounted a pole camera across the street from Rafael Tafoya&#x²⁷;s house without first securing a warrant. Id. at 614. The pole camera continuously

recorded footage of Tafoya&#x²⁷;s property—including his backyard, which was otherwise hidden by a six-foot-high privacy fence—for over three months. Id. The court held that "police use of the pole camera to continuously video surveil Tafoya&#x²⁷;s fenced-in curtilage for three months, with the footage stored indefinitely for later review, constituted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 618. But when doing so, it recognized that "a person standing on the street could not see into the backyard—giving rise to a subjective expectation of privacy. Id. at 622 (emphasis added). Williamson&#x²⁷;s surveilled areas, on the contrary, were visible by and exposed to the public—providing him no such expectation of privacy. See United States v. Dennis,⁴¹ F. 4th 732, 740–41 (5th Cir. 2022) (explaining that the use of a pole camera was not a search because “one can see through [the defendant&#x²⁷;s] fence and [thus] the cameras captured what was open to public view from the street"). Because Williamson&#x²⁷;s backyard was open to public view from an observer standing on the street, we need not—and do not—address whether the use of a pole camera to record over a privacy fence into an otherwise enclosed backyard invades a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Second, the pole cameras&#x²⁷; capacity to record non-stop does not transform the Fourth Amendment analysis in the manner Williamson suggests. Nothing in the Constitution forbids the government from using technology to conduct lawful investigations more efficiently. The authorities Williamson cites for support—Justice Alito&#x²⁷;s and Justice Sotomayor&#x²⁷;s concurrences in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) and the Supreme Court&#x²⁷;s decision in

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018)—are wholly consistent with that principle.

The Supreme Court in Jones held that the government&#x²⁷;s installation of a GPS device on a target&#x²⁷;s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle&#x²⁷;s movements, constituted a search. 565 U.S. at 404. In reaching that conclusion, the Court relied on a trespass-based rule. See id. at 409 ("[T]he Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test."). Justice Alito agreed with the Court&#x²⁷;s judgment but wrote separately to clarify that he would have eschewed the trespass approach and simply asked "whether respondent&#x²⁷;s reasonable expectations of privacy were violated by the longterm monitoring of the movements of the vehicle he drove.” Id. at 419 (Alito, J., concurring). Williamson seizes on this language because it identifies a durational element to the Fourth Amendment analysis of surveillance—but he ignores that pole cameras and GPS trackers are meaningfully different forms of surveillance. For Justice Alito, the GPS monitoring in Jones was a search because "law enforcement agents tracked every movement that respondent made in the vehicle he was driving.” Id. at 430. By contrast, a pole camera does not track movement. It does not track location. It is stationary and therefore does not "follow" a person like a GPS attached to his vehicle. As such, it is difficult to see why Justice Alito&#x²⁷;s concurrence about GPS devices would extend to an inapposite technology like pole cameras.

Similarly, Justice Sotomayor focused on the "unique attributes" of GPS surveillance. Id. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). "GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person&#x²⁷;s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations." Id. A pole camera pointed at a house provides virtually none of this information—and to the extent that it does, it does so at a level of detail markedly lower than a GPS tracking device.

The Supreme Court&#x²⁷;s decision in Carpenter likewise does not support Williamson&#x²⁷;s position. There, the Court held that the government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user&#x²⁷;s past movements. 585 U.S. at 300. Gesturing toward Jones, the Court recognized that cell phone tracking "partakes of many of the qualities of the GPS monitoring we considered in Jones." Id. at 309. "Much like GPS tracking of a vehicle, cell phone location information is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled." Id. And as with GPS information, "the time-stamped data provides an intimate window" into a person&#x²⁷;s life. Id. at 311.

According to Williamson, Carpenter demonstrates that modern technology does not provide law enforcement carte blanche to ignore the Fourth Amendment. True enough. But as with Jones, the Carpenter decision concerned a technology that is meaningfully different than pole cameras. Pole cameras are distinct both in terms of the information they mine and the degree of intrusion necessary to do so. Moreover, the Carpenter majority clarified that its decision

is "narrow" and, of particular relevance here, does not "call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras.” Id. at 316. Pole cameras are a conventional surveillance technique very similar to security cameras—and the government has used them for surveillance across the country for decades. See, e.g., United States v. Bregu, 948 F. 3d 408, 411 (1st Cir. 2020) (noting the use of a pole camera outside a suspect&#x²⁷;s residence to gather evidence); United States v. Christie, 825 F. 3d 1048, 1067 (9th Cir. 2016) ("Before applying for the wiretaps, the government also installed a pole camera outside the Ministry&#x²⁷;s front entrance"); United States v. Gaskins, 690 F. 3d 569, 574 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (noting the use of a pole camera in a narcotics conspiracy investigation); United States v. Price, 418 F. 3d 771, 781–82 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting the use of a pole camera in a conspiracy investigation); United States v. Carraway, 108 F. 3d 745, 749 (7th Cir. 1997) (noting the use of a pole camera in an investigation). Thus, to the extent that Carpenter is relevant to Williamson&#x²⁷;s case, it cuts against him.

Our reasoning accords with the Sixth and Seventh Circuits— both of which have addressed surveillance in general and pole cameras in particular. In United States v. Houston, 813 F. 3d 282 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit evaluated the legality of footage "recorded over the course of ten weeks by a camera installed on top of a public utility pole approximately 200 yards away” from the farm being observed. Id. at 285. It held that, “[a]lthough this ten-week surveillance was conducted without a warrant, the use of the pole camera did not violate Houston&#x²⁷;s reasonable expectations of privacy because the camera recorded the same view . . . as that enjoyed by

passersby on public roads.” Id. As in Williamson&#x²⁷;s case, the officers “only observed what Houston made public to any person traveling" on the surrounding roads. Id. at 288.

Moreover, the court squarely addressed Williamson&#x²⁷;s contention concerning the duration of surveillance: "the length of the surveillance did not render the use of the pole camera unconstitutional, because the Fourth Amendment does not punish law enforcement for using technology to more efficiently conduct their investigations.” Id. In other words, "[w]hile the agents could have stationed agents round-the-clock to observe Houston&#x²⁷;s farm in person, the fact that they instead used a camera to conduct the surveillance does not make the surveillance unconstitutional." Id. The Sixth Circuit has since reaffirmed its reasoning. See United States v. Powell, 847 F. 3d 760, 773 (6th Cir. 2017) (holding that the warrantless surveillance of three buildings through the installation of video cameras on three public utility poles, for periods of up to 90 days each, did not violate the defendants&#x²⁷; Fourth Amendment rights); United States v. May-Shaw, 955 F. 3d 563, 567–69 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding that warrantless, long-term pole camera surveillance of the defendant&#x²⁷;s partially-enclosed carport was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment—even if the carport constituted the curtilage of his apartment).

Similarly, in United States v. Tuggle, the Seventh Circuit considered the government&#x²⁷;s warrantless use of three video cameras affixed to utility poles to monitor Tuggle&#x²⁷;s nearby residence.⁴ F. 4th 505, 511 (7th Cir. 2021). The cameras recorded his property

for nearly eighteen months and offered several advantages to the government&#x²⁷;s investigation. Id. While in use, the cameras recorded around the clock. Id. Rudimentary lighting technology improved the quality of overnight footage. Id. And agents could remotely zoom, pan, and tilt the cameras and review footage in real time. Id. Relying on Carpenter, Tuggle argued that the pole cameras unconstitutionally "captured the whole of [his] movements." Id. at 524 (citation and internal marks omitted).

The Seventh Circuit rejected his argument: “the stationary cameras placed around Tuggle&#x²⁷;s house captured an important sliver of Tuggle&#x²⁷;s life, but they did not paint the type of exhaustive picture of his every movement that the Supreme Court has frowned upon.” Id. “If the facts and concurrences of Jones and Carpenter set the benchmarks, then the surveillance in this case pales in comparison." Id. It recognized, with Carpenter in mind, that whether pole cameras are the same as security cameras is irrelevant "because the cameras here would clearly qualify as a conventional surveillance technique[]." Id. at 526 (citation and internal marks omitted). Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the use of pole cameras—even the prolonged use—does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law. And in doing so, it noted a compelling legal reality: "no federal circuit court has found a Fourth Amendment search based on long-term use of pole cameras on public property to view plainly visible areas of a person&#x²⁷;s home.” Id. at 522. We decline to alter that status quo.

Williamson cites one court that has held otherwise, but we are not persuaded. In State v. Jones, 903 N.W. 2d 101 (S.D. 2017), the Supreme Court of South Dakota addressed law enforcement&#x²⁷;s warrantless installation of a pole camera on a public streetlight to record Jones&#x²⁷;s activities. Id. at 103. Officers used the camera&#x²⁷;s two months of footage to obtain a search warrant for his home. Id. Pointing to the “amassed nature” of the surveillance, the court held that officers violated Jones&#x²⁷;s reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. at 111–13. We cannot agree with that reasoning. State v. Jones was decided before Carpenter and therefore did not have the benefit of Carpenter&#x²⁷;s clarification that "conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras,” are not searches just because they record large amounts of data. Carpenter, 585 U.S. at 316.

Having addressed the pole camera issue, we also believe that Williamson&#x²⁷;s other challenge to the home warrant—that its supporting affidavits relied on stale information—fails as well. According to Williamson, law enforcement relied on the June 11th controlled buy to support the search warrant for his home. But that controlled buy, he recounts, only turned up a personal-use amount of marijuana and thereby failed to establish probable cause for a massive drug operation. Williamson cites United States v. Underwood, which held that a detective&#x²⁷;s observation of a personal-use amount of marijuana at the defendant&#x²⁷;s home failed to support the conclusion that he was a courier for an ecstasy trafficking organization or that evidence of such trafficking would be found at his home. 725 F. 3d 1076, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2013).

Williamson&#x²⁷;s arguments on this score are unpersuasive for at least two reasons.

First, Williamson overlooks the significance of the "personal-use amount of marijuana” in Underwood. Here, Williamson sold heroin, not marijuana. And he did not merely have a personaluse amount in his home—he sold a personal-use amount. We have recognized that drug trafficking activities are “inherently protracted and continuous.” United States v. Magluta, 198 F. 3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1999) (citation and internal marks omitted), opinion vacated in part on other grounds on reh&#x²⁷;g, 203 F. 3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2000). Because Williamson was selling personal-use amounts out of his home, there was good reason to believe that some stash of drugs would be present at Williamson&#x²⁷;s home. Unlike Underwood, where a detective merely observed a zip-lock bag containing a personaluse amount of marijuana, law enforcement here reasonably understood Williamson—having surveilled him to be selling drugs systematically from a larger stash.

Second, even if the controlled buy produced only stale information, the district court reasonably found that subsequent transactions updated the evidence obtained through that buy, indicating that drugs were still likely to be at the house. For example, the affidavit provides evidence that Williamson was engaged in drug-related transactions with at least four others during the period between the controlled purchase and the application for the warrant. So, in sum, the controlled buy was more telling than Williamson

admits, and even if the evidence from it was thrown out altogether, subsequent transactions would have supported probable cause.

2.

We turn now to the apartment warrant. The exclusionary rule "generally prohibits the government from relying on evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. McCall, 84 F. 4th 1317, 1323 (11th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1042 (2024). Consistent with the rule&#x²⁷;s objective of future deterrence, a "good faith exception” applies even to close calls and threshold cases. Id. at 1323–25 (citing Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535, 556 (2012)). To establish that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to the apartment warrant, Williamson must prove that the warrant is “based on an affidavit &#x²⁷;so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Id. at 1323 (quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984)). In making that determination, “[w]e look only to the face” of the affidavit. Id. at 1325 (citing United States v. Robinson, 336 F. 3d 1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2003)). The affidavit must be so clearly insufficient “that it provided &#x²⁷;no hint&#x²⁷; as to why police believed they would find incriminating evidence." United States v. Morales, 987 F. 3d 966, 976 (11th Cir. 2021).

There is simply no plausible argument that the information or affidavit supporting the apartment warrant is excludable. "There was no reason to think that the judge&#x²⁷;s approval of the warrant was unusual or suspect." McCall, 84 F. 4th at 1329. No one has alleged that any affiant provided information that he knew was false. Nor

was any of the information provided unclear or insufficiently particular. And even taking the warrant&#x²⁷;s alleged deficiencies as true, none of them would require suppression under the foregoing standards. See id. at 1328 (applying the good faith exception to an overbroad warrant because, despite its overbroadness, it was not so "facially deficient” that officers could not have reasonably relied on it when executing their search).

Moreover, there are several reasons why a reasonable officer could have relied on the warrant. First, the warrant sought nonperishable items typically held for long periods of time. For example, the supporting affidavit contained evidence that Williamson stored money and personalized, expensive jewelry in the apartment—specifically, Williamson&#x²⁷;s $30,000 gold necklace and "RAW" pendant. A reasonable officer could have expected that Williamson would still possess the necklace two years later. Second, as Agent Gerhardt detailed in the affidavit, Williamson did not appear to have any legitimate source of income. Nevertheless, large and unexplained sums of money moved through affiliated bank accounts—and Williamson made tens of thousands of dollars&#x²⁷; worth of jewelry purchases in cash. Lastly, the objective reasonableness of the officers&#x²⁷; reliance on the warrant is bolstered by the extensive background information provided by the confidential source—information about Williamson&#x²⁷;s involvement with drug trafficking, corroborated and refreshed by the confidential source&#x²⁷;s controlled purchase of heroin. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the good faith exception applies to the apartment warrant.

B.

We now address the defendants&#x²⁷; various sufficiency challenges. Each defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conspiracy conviction. Williamson further challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, and the use of a communication facility to commit a drug trafficking crime.

We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury&#x²⁷;s verdict. United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F. 3d 1243, 1244 (11th Cir. 2000).

1.

We begin with each defendant&#x²⁷;s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conspiracy conviction. To sustain a conviction under²¹ U.S.C. Section 846, the government must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an illegal agreement existed to possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance; (2) each defendant knew of the agreement; and (3) each defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined the agreement. United States v. Charles, 313 F. 3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002). It did not have to prove that each defendant knew every detail or participated in

every stage of the conspiracy—only that they knew its essential nature. United States v. Morel, 63 F. 4th 913, 919 (11th Cir. 2023).

a. Williamson argues that the evidence supported only a buyer-seller relationship between him and others. We are unpersuaded.

The government presented evidence establishing that Williamson received kilos of cocaine that he stored at his home, that he would obtain a kilo or two of heroin each month for resale, and that he had suitcases full of marijuana stored at his apartment. Three individuals—Errick Daniel, Derrick Bland, and Leanthony Gillins—stayed at Williamson&#x²⁷;s house and sold drugs he supplied. Isiah Thomas testified that he dealt drugs with Williamson for several years. Virtually all of this evidence was consistent with—and corroborated by other testimony, video evidence, and intercepted phone calls. Based on the quantity of drugs and the frequency with which they were sold, as well as the context surrounding Williamson&#x²⁷;s routine interactions with others, there is simply no plausible argument that the government failed to carry its burden on Williamson&#x²⁷;s conspiracy charge. See United States v. Gomez, 164 F. 3d 1354, 1356 (11th Cir. 1999) (recognizing that evidence of a conspiracy, as opposed to a buyer-seller relationship, may include transactions involving large quantities of drugs and prolonged cooperation between the parties); United States v. Gallardo, 977 F. 3d 1126, 1140 (11th Cir. 2020) (explaining that circumstantial evidence

of an understanding between persons to engage in illicit conduct may serve as proof of the existence of an agreement).

b. Taylor, like Williamson, argues that the government&#x²⁷;s evidence merely suggests a buyer-seller relationship between himself and others. And he contends that the government offered no testimony that he ever talked to Williamson or dealt with Williamson. We reject both arguments.

First, as to Taylor&#x²⁷;s buyer-seller argument, Kenneth Johnson testified that he and Taylor began dealing drugs as early as 2012, "split up for some years,” and resumed in 2018. Taylor would supply Johnson with meth and heroin that Johnson would then sell to others. Johnson testified that he once saw Taylor with “like a pound" of meth. Isiah Thomas testified that he sold Taylor heroin. And both Johnson and Thomas&#x²⁷;s testimonies were corroborated by either phone calls or text messages. Recognizing that "repeated transactions buying and selling large quantities of illegal drugs” is "sufficient evidence that the participants were involved in a conspiracy to distribute those drugs in the market," we reject Taylor&#x²⁷;s arguments for much the same reasons we rejected Williamson&#x²⁷;s arguments. United States v. Brown, 587 F. 3d 1082, 1089 (11th Cir. 2009).

Second, as to whether Taylor ever talked directly to Williamson, “[i]t is irrelevant that particular conspirators may not have known other conspirators or may not have participated in every stage of the conspiracy; all that the government must prove is an

agreement or common purpose to violate the law and intentional joining in this goal by coconspirators.” United States v. Richardson, 532 F. 3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal marks omitted). The government proved “an agreement or common purpose" through the evidence presented above.

C.

Gregory argues there was no credible evidence proving he was aware of any conspiracy, entered into any agreement to commit a crime, or knowingly and voluntarily joined any conspiracy. We disagree.

As we have explained, a conspiracy can be found if the evidence allows an inference that the buyer and seller knew the drugs were for distribution. United States v. Achey, 943 F. 3d 909, 917 (11th Cir. 2019). Here, the evidence established that Gregory dealt drugs with Isaac Robinson who, in turn, was a source for Williamson, selling him both meth and marijuana. It also established that Gregory sold kilos of meth to Demarcus Whitt routinely over several months. Later, Whitt began to supply drugs to Gregory—a relationship that, at one point, resulted in the two meeting so that Gregory could pay Whitt about $30,000 for meth. The amount of drugs exchanged, the regularity of those exchanges, and the corresponding prices all clearly evince knowledge of distribution. See Gomez, 164 F. 3d at 1356; Brown, 587 F. 3d at 1089. The government carried its burden as to Gregory&#x²⁷;s conspiracy charge.

d. Lastly, Archie argues there is no credible evidence he knew of any conspiracy, entered into any agreement to commit a crime, or knowingly and voluntarily joined any conspiracy. Pointing out that the government presented testimony from "a convicted felon and co-conspirator” who was offered "leniency in sentencing," Archie&#x²⁷;s core contention seems to be that Isiah Thomas&#x²⁷;s testimony was unreliable and untrustworthy.

However, “[c]redibility questions are the exclusive province of the jury, and on sufficiency review we must assume that they were answered in a manner that supports the verdict unless witness testimony is ‘unbelievable’ as a matter of law.” United States v. Downs, 61 F. 4th 1306, 1316 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 181 (2023) (internal citations omitted). Thomas, to whom Williamson was a primary source, testified that Williamson supplied Archie with re-sale quantities of marijuana—“about three pounds” “once or twice a week.” Thomas observed these transactions and testified that they occurred over the course of about two years. Particularly given that Archie was in possession of 74.6 grams of marijuana, a handgun, and a digital scale when arrested, Thomas&#x²⁷;s testimony is not "unbelievable.” Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury&#x²⁷;s verdict, we reject Archie&#x²⁷;s argument.