source: Caselaw Access Project

author: GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Philip A. WHARTON; Joseph Roundtree; James Maddox; Lamar Correa, Appellants v. Carl C. DANBERG; Cathy Escherich; Rebecca McBride; Robert Coupe
    No. 16-1988
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Argued November 3, 2016
    (Opinion Filed: April 19, 2017)

      Stephen A. Hampton, Esq. [ARGUED], Grady & Hampton, 6 North Bradford Street, Dover, DE 19904, Counsel for Appellants.
    Michael F. McTaggart, Esq. [ARGUED], Delaware Department of Justice, 820 North French Street, Carvel Office Building, 6th Floor, Wilmington,' DE 19801, Counsel for Appellees.
    Richard H. Morse, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union, 100 West 10th Street, Suite 706, Wilmington, DE 19801, Counsel for Amicus Curiae.
    Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

This putative class action alleges that the Delaware correctional system routinely fails to pelease inmates in a timely manner, holding them for days or weeks beyond when they should be set free. Appellants, a group of inmates who were over-detained, have sued top correctional officials — specifically, former Delaware Department of Corrections (“DDOC”) Commissioner Carl Danberg, current DDOC Commissioner Robert Coupe, and Rebecca McBride, the current Director of the DDOC Central Offender Records division (“COR”) — seeking both damages and structural reform of COR. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Danberg, McBride, and Coupe (Appellees). We will affirm.

I. FACTS

In 2008, the Delaware correctional system was facing scandal for its handling of inmate releases. One inmate, Jermaine Lamar Wilson, committed suicide in his cell on the day he was supposed to be — but was not — released. Dozens of other inmates had either been released too early or too late. National experts, cited in contemporaneous press reports, expressed surprise about how many' Delaware inmates were improperly released. As gubernatorial candidates from both parties attacked the state correctional system, there was high-level support for reform.

That reform took shape in the establishment of a. new Central Offender Records office within the Delaware Department of Corrections. Previously, staff at each prison handled releases individually. COR was meant to centralize, standardize, and generally improve the state’s processing of inmate releases. The creation of COR, led by then-DDOC Commissioner Carl Dan-berg, was a substantial bureaucratic undertaking, requiring the department to coordinate with legislators, the judiciary, and its unionized employees.

This litigation, however, contests whether centralization has brought improvement. Appellants allege that Delaware’s problems with over-detentions have, if anything, gotten worse since 2008.

Under the new system, after an inmate is ordered to be released (because he or she posted bail, because their bail was changed from secured to unsecured, or because they completed their sentence, to offer a few examples), the court is supposed to fax an order to COR. COR then checks whether there is a reason to continue holding the individual — for example, an outstanding warrant — and if there is not, sends instructions to the facility where they are being held for that individual’s release.

Undoubtedly, there were bumps along the way to a centralized system. In 2008, Danberg himself admitted that the creation of COR had caused confusion during the transition itself. Led by Appellees, DDOC has attempted to improve COR’s functioning since its inception. COR has an official goal of processing all releases within 24 hours. Observing delays in the processing of releases, Appellees have increased staffing levels. They created a new six-month orientation period for new hires at COR. In 2010, COR adopted a new computer system, called the Delaware Automated Correction System (“DACS”) which is meant to foster better tracking of release dates and the “triage” of records to prioritize releases. JA 15. Finally, COR created a new priority unit for releases likely to be fast and easy, such as those whose bail is changed to unsecured or those whose charges are dismissed. According to McBride, she and her co-defendants are “always looking at ways to be more efficient.” JA 12.

Even with these interventions, however, Appellants suggest that COR is badly broken, causing or allowing the over-detention of as many as thousands of inmates a year. To support their theory of over-detention, Appellants submitted a disparate and somewhat disjointed assortment of affidavits from several witnesses whose work brings them in close contact with the correctional system. These affidavits, described below, reported huge numbers of over-detentions, albeit in an impressionistic fashion based on the affiants’ own personal observations and estimates.

First, a former records clerk at COR named Brenda Bell estimated that 10 to 20 percent of release orders received by COR were not processed and sent to a correctional facility within 24 hours, and that 20 to 30 inmates per week ended up spending more than two days waiting for COR to send their release order to their facility.

Second, a bail bondsperson, Bruny Mercado, calculated that about 35 percent of people for whom she had posted bond were held for more than 24 hours after bond was posted, and 25 percent of people were held for more than 48 hours afterward. Mercado also said that she had seen no improvement at COR in its four years of existence.

Third, a Delaware public defender, Sandra Dean, averred that over-detention was a “consistent problem” for her clients. JA 179. She reported that she had her secretary call COR every day to inquire about clients whose release had been ordered by the courts and that she followed up personally with COR for clients who were not released after three days. Notably, although Dean only served as a public defender until 2010, she claimed that the over-detention problem worsened at the end of that period.

Given that COR processes between 16,-000 and 18,000 releases per year, these affidavits allege as many as 6,300 over-detentions a year. The affidavits also allege that COR was informed of the problem, both by Dean’s regular inquiries and by Mercado, who stated that she had spoken personally with McBride about the over-detention problems.

On the other hand, hard, reliable data about the number of over-detentions occurring each year is more or less missing from the record. Appellants’ affidavits put forth various estimates of the over-detention problem, but no precise quantification or authoritative analysis. They offer a limited ability to understand how the problem has changed over time.

In contrast, Appellees do not even attempt to provide a systematic accounting of over-detentions from their own archives. Rather, they base their count of over-detentions on Appellants’ ability to identify specific over-detained inmates.

The record does include various tables purporting to show the number of over-detentions each month, which totaled to two each year of the relevant period except for FY TO, when there were 18 over-detentions. But neither party treats those tables as reliable. Given the absence of information about the source of that data, we likewise decline to treat these tables as reliable.

According to Appellants, two specific problems at COR, in addition to the general failure of the centralization effort, account for the continuing trouble with over-detentions. First, they claim that COR is under-staffed generally and particularly short-handed on nights and weekends. COR employees and former employees testified that the division would be able to process releases more quickly and avoid over-detentions if it had more staff or was open more hours. Coverage is worse on weekends: although fewer releases arrive at COR on weekends, staffing levels are more-than-proportionally thinner. COR also typically closes its offices between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. and over holidays, which Appellants allege leads to worse delays during those periods (Delaware’s Justice of the Peace Courts, which send releases to COR, remain open 24/7). During those periods, however, COR supervisors are on call around the clock to handle any problems that might arise. Appellee McBride testified that she has never received any complaints about coverage while COR offices were closed, and there is no record evidence that over-detentions cluster around holidays or are otherwise affected by these closures.

Second, Appellants argue that COR is unresponsive to inmates and those acting on their behalf. Prisoners cannot contact COR directly, except by mail. If they want more immediate communication with COR — and time is of the essence for an inmate detained past his release date— they must request that prison staff email COR. Prisoners’ families, friends, and bail bondsmen can call COR directly, but generally complain that COR is frequently unhelpful or indifferent, when it can be reached at all. Outside input allegedly falls on deaf ears. But inmates and their associates are the individuals best placed to know that they have been over-detained— they have access to information and strong incentives to monitor COR — and could play an important oversight function if allowed.

Indeed, the record shows that when inquiries did reach COR, they helped spur COR to fix problems. Sandra Dean, the public defender, noted her practice of routinely contacting COR about over-detained clients. She stated that additional pressure, such as threatening to contact a judge or initiate a contempt proceeding, helped more. Conversely, Dean observed that those least able to speak for themselves when over-detained, like the handicapped or those who did not speak English, were at greater risk. Likewise, after Appellants complained of being over-detained, prison officials urged them to contact COR because that was the best way to speed their release. COR’s alleged failure to communicate potentially deprives COR of an alert system and allows errors to fester. That said, McBride testified that family members, courts, and correctional officers are able to reach her directly with complaints about over-detention and that she responds to those complaints with an immediate investigation into the inmate’s situation.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 1, 2012. At the close of discovery, Plaintiffs moved for class certification and Defendants for summary judgment.

The District Court’s opinion denied the motion for class certification and granted summary judgment. Defendants prevailed in toto. Class certification was denied on commonality grounds because some members of the proposed class were over-detained due to delays in the court system, rather than delays at COR. The Court found that there was no “common contention” the truth of which could “resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011). The Court also found that all claims against Defendants in their official capacities were barred by sovereign immunity; it declined to reach the question of qualified immunity; and it granted summary judgment on Appellants’ state law claims.

The Court framed its analysis of the core federal constitutional claims by using the “more-specific-provision rule.” Specifically, the Court determined that the rule meant that any substantive due process claims should be addressed only under the more specific Eighth Amendment analysis of cruel and unusual punishment. See Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249, 261 (3d Cir. 2010). In that Eighth Amendment analysis, the District Court held that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact on, two required elements of their claim — deliberate indifference by Defendants to the risk of over-detentions and a causal connection between Defendants’ acts and Plaintiffs’ over-detentions.

In this respect, the Court found particularly determinative: 1) press coverage praising defendant Danberg for his creation of COR and his efforts to fix the over-detention problem, 2) defendant McBride’s familiarity with COR procedures and her work to improve them, and 3) defendant Coupe’s formation of a special unit to speed up daily bail releases.

Plaintiffs filed a Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, which was denied because Plaintiffs simply rehashed the arguments posed ■ on summary judgment. Plaintiffs then appealed all of the federal claims asserted.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, the Court of Appeals’ review is “plenary” and the court should “apply the same test the district court should have utilized initially.” Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Summary judgment should be granted only when the record shows that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[A]ll justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [the nonmovant’s] favor” but the “mere existence of some evidence in support of the nonmovant is insufficient to deny a motion for summary judgment; enough evidence must exist to enable a jury to reasonably find for- the nonmovant on the issue.” Giles, 571 F.3d at 322 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

In deciding whether to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a district court must make “findings” and factual determinations. In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 320 (3d Cir. 2008). The burden of proof rests with the movant to “affirmatively demonstrate” certifiability by a preponderance of the evidence. Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350, 131 S.Ct. 2541. The District Court’s denial of class certification is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 165 (3d Cir. 2001).

IV. ANALYSIS

A Eighth Amendment Legal Standards

Our standard for analyzing over-detention claims is well-established. An inmate’s detention after his term of imprisonment can, under certain circumstances, constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Montanez v. Thompson, 603 F.3d 243, 250 (3d Cir. 2010). Continued incarceration beyond that point is clearly punitive, and in many cases will serve no penological justification at all. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1108 (3d Cir. 1989). That said, we also recognize that “[t]he administration of a system of punishment entails an unavoidable risk of error” and that “[elimination of the risk of error in many instances would be either literally impossible or unfeasible because prohibitively costly.” Id. The Eighth Ameiidment does not, and could not, require the elimination of all such risk of error.

Thus, we have established a three-part test for over-detention claims. A plaintiff must show:

(1) a prison official had knowledge of the prisoner’s problem and thus of the risk that unwarranted punishment was being, or would be, inflicted; (2) the official either failed to act or took only ineffectual action under the circumstances, indicating that his response to the problem was a product of deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s plight; and (3) a causal connection between the official’s response to the problem and the unjustified detention.”

Montanez, 603 F.3d at 252.

Up to now, our over-detention jurisprudence has concerned individual plaintiffs challenging decisions specific to themselves. In Sample v. Diecks, our first decision in this line of cases, a prison records officer mistakenly determined that an inmate still had time to serve on another sentence and authorities therefore refused to release him. 885 F.2d at 1102. Then came Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1993), which concerned parole officers who initially misinterpreted a judge’s sentencing order, resulting in a six-month delay in the inmate’s release while officials conducted an investigation. Most recently, Montanez v. Thompson likewise involved various calculations of a particular inmate’s sentence. 603 F.3d at 246-48.

In contrast, Plaintiffs here allege systemic shortcomings at COR. The problems are not prisoner-specific misapplications of the law, but organizational policies and practices. Nevertheless, the same standard applies, although it must be applied with sensitivity to the change of context. In particular, we have noted that the position of the defendant in an over-detention suit must affect the second prong of our test: deliberate indifference. “Among the circumstances relevant to a determination of whether the requisite attitude was present are the scope of the official’s duties and the role he or she has played in the everyday life of the prison.” Sample, 885 F.2d at 1110. An official is less likely to display deliberate indifference if “there are procedures in place calling for others to pursue the matter” and more likely to be deliberately indifferent if given his or her role, a problem “will not likely be resolved unless he or she addresses it or refers it to others[.]” Id.

This flexible standard for deliberate indifference, which foresees suits against officials up and down the organizational chart of the prison system, anticipates that over-detention claims may raise structural challenges as well as individual ones. Indeed, this is the necessary corollary of our recognition that the “administration of a system of punishment entails an unavoidable risk of error.” Sample, 885 F.2d at 1108. Operating a prison system is a major bureaucratic undertaking. That fact compels us to offer individual prison officials room for imperfection and accidents. But it also teaches that preventing over-detentions may require bureaucratic solutions from top management. Litigation against top administrators, seeking structural reforms of the agency as a whole, may be the only effective way to reduce the overall risk of unconstitutional error. Where appropriate, we must treat the correctional system as a system.

Suits against high-level government officials must satisfy the general requirements for supervisory liability. In particular, supervisors are liable only for their own acts; in this case, they are liable only if they, “with deliberate indifference to the consequences, established and maintained a policy, practice or custom which directly caused [the] constitutional harm.” AM. ex rel. J.M.K. v. Luzerne Cty. Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 586 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Stoneking v. Bradford Area Sch. Dist., 882 F.2d 720, 725 (3d Cir. 1989)) (alteration in original). This standard for supervisory liability largely overlaps with the over-detention standard — both require a showing of deliberate indifference and causation — but centers the inquiry around a policy or practice.

R Eighth Amendment Analysis

We agree with the District Court that Appellants established a genuine dispute of material fact as to the first prong of the over-detention standard: knowledge of a risk of unwarranted punishment. Fundamentally, COR was created because DDOC was aware of what it believed to be an unacceptable level of over-detention in Delaware. Moreover, there is record evidence that those near to the correctional system warned Appellees of continuing over-detention problems post-2008, including the public defender, Sandra Dean, and the bail bondsperson, Bruny Mercado. While the record does not allow for the exact calculation of over-detention levels or year-by-year trends in over-detention, a jury could reasonably find the overall level of over-detention to be quite substantial. Indeed, McBride’s own testimony shows an awareness of continuing challenges at COR: She admitted at her deposition that she has always perceived a problem with the timely processing of releases, since the creation of COR. Her efforts to improve COR came in response to a sense that there was a need for change in the agency’s operations.

Appellants fail, however, to show a genuine disputé of material fact as to the second prong: deliberate indifference. As the District Court held,- the record shows a variety of efforts by Appellees to improve COR and address the over-detention problem. For example, not only did McBride increase staffing levels at COR, she offered uncontradicted testimony that she did so specifically in response to delays in processing. Likewise, her efforts to improve the agency’s training system, to upgrade its technology, and to create special units to more efficiently handle certain types of release show, as she testified, that COR leadership was “always looking at ways to be more efficient.” JA 12.

These facts weigh heavily against any reasonable finding of deliberate indifference. In Moore v. Tartler, we observed that deliberate indifference had been “demonstrated in those cases where prison officials were put on notice and then simply refused to investigate a prisoner’s claim of sentence miscalculation.” 986 F.2d at 686 (citing Alexander v. Perrill, 916 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1990) and Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1985)). Because the parole board officials’ investigation in Moore constituted “affirmative steps” to resolve the issue, we could not find deliberate indifference. Id. at 687. Here, Appellees have also taken affirmative steps to address over-detentions in the Delaware system and this makes a finding of deliberate indifference difficult.

But the presence of such affirmative steps is not necessarily dispositive. A further inquiry, not undertaken by the District Court, is required in this case. In Moore, the parole officers’ investigation was targeted to resolve the inmate’s complaint in full. Although the investigation was slow, the officials could safely conclude that upon its completion they would have done all that they could do to address Moore’s over-detention. Here, it is not self-evident that the COR reforms were up to the task at hand. “[Ijneffectual action under the circumstances” can also indicate deliberate indifference. Montanez, 603 F.3d at 252.

This is not to say that federal courts conduct independent reviews of the wisdom of prison policy. The purpose of addressing “ineffectual action” is not to render a program evaluation. The ultimate subject of inquiry remains deliberate indifference: a state of mind. We look to see whether the gap between the officials’ actions or inaction and the problem they were trying to solve was so large that those actions display deliberate indifference. Imagine an inmate who came to the prison infirmary with a cut and with kidney failure and was given only a bandage. We would have no trouble concluding that this could constitute deliberate indifference. Cf. Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 194-95, 198-99 (3d Cir. 1999) (suggesting that providing- diabetic inmates with only one insulin injection per day and less-than-daily blood sugar monitoring, when they needed more, can constitute deliberate indifference).

By the same token, supervisory efforts to minimize over-detentions in one manner could, in principle, co-exist with deliberate indifference to a festering over-detention problem rooted in different agency practices or policies. Given the allegations of rampant over-detention — affecting as many as one-third of inmates — a jury could might reasonably ponder whether something along these lines was occurring.

But an argument of this sort requires evidence to survive summary judgment. While Appellants may have shown a genuine dispute whether over-detentions remain a large-scale problem in the Delaware correctional system, there is no genuine dispute regarding whether Ap-pellees have tried to address the over-detention problem. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Appellants, we could conclude that. over-detentions are rampant in Delaware and that correctional officials are trying, albeit without great success, to tackle that challenge. So far, this is not deliberate indifference. Appellants need more to rescue their claim. They would need to show that Appellees’ efforts to improve COR so obviously miss the mark that pursuing those efforts manifests disregard for the real problem and thereby amounts to deliberate indifference. Such evidence is absent from the record.

On summary judgment, the nonmoving party must affirmatively “show where in the record there exists a genuine dispute over a material fact.” Doe v. Abington Friends Sch., 480 F.3d 252, 256 (3d Cir. 2007). “Speculation and conjecture may not defeat a motion for summary judgment[.]” Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199, 228 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Lexington Ins. Co. v. W. Pa. Hosp., 423 F.3d 318, 332-33 (3d Cir. 2005)). But speculation is all that Appellants can put forward to show that the DDOC officials were deliberately indifferent notwithstanding their efforts to improve the release process. The record offers no reason to believe that Appellees’ chosen interventions were callously misguided.

For example, Appellants offer an affidavit from a former COR employee stating that the computerized DACS system increased delay. Whether DACS was a successful technological upgrade is not a dispute sufficient to go to trial. It does not show a dispute that computerization was misguided from the start. Moreover, McBride testified that DACS has helped COR be more efficient and has sped up the release process. She admitted that there were issues with the'system that needed to be resolved, but did not indicate that COR would leave those issues uriaddressed. DACS may have been “ineffective” in the sense that it did not immediately reduce over-detentions — but that is not the test. Rather, Appellants must show that COR’s ineffectiveness amounted to deliberate indifference.

Likewise, it may be the case that COR needs more staff. There is evidence to that effect, sufficient to create a factual dispute. But the record also shows that McBride observed a need for more staff, worked with other officials to calculate how many more staff were required, and secured those positions from more senior authorities within state government. Separately, COR also increased the number of casual/seasonal staff used to pull and re-file records, again in response to a perceived need and a review of agency operations. To show deliberate indifference on the staffing issue, Appellants would need evidence that would allow a jury to conclude, for example, that COR knew its staffing increases would be insufficient or that after it realized it still needed more staff after the first round of hires, it did nothing in response. No such evidence is in this record.

With regards to COR’s unresponsiveness to outside communications, a different sort of evidence would be needed to establish deliberate indifference. Appellants demonstrated a dispute whether COR was open to inquiries from inmates and whether increased openness would help reduce over-detentions. As already noted, there is evidence to suggest that inmates were urged to contact COR to expedite their release and that where contact was made, such as by a public defender, it really did spur action. But the record does not show that COR took any particular action to improve this problem. Although this may be more indicative of deliberate indifference, what is absent here is any evidence showing that COR should have addressed this problem with particular alacrity as opposed to any other. Had the crux of the evidence presented to the District Court been that closed channels of communication caused particularly large numbers of over-detentions; that an alternative system had been presented to COR or was a best practice they should have known to adopt; or that changes to COR’s communications policy would have been easier or more efficacious than COR’s other reform efforts, then Appellants may have been in a different posture regarding summary judgment.

Nor could a reasonable jury infer deliberate indifference from the simple fact that over-detentions increased in this period (if the jury found that they did). There are surely many variables that affect the over-detention problem. In particular, there is substantial and uncontested record evidence that many over-detentions originate in the court system rather than at COR. It is entirely plausible that the overall increase in over-detentions stemmed from changes outside COR and that the reform efforts at COR, though effective, were swamped by external forces. To survive summary judgment, Appellants need more than speculation connecting any increase in over-detentions with the COR policies they deem ineffective.

A comparison with a similar, successful over-detention suit is instructive. In Barnes v. District of Columbia, 793 F.Supp.2d 260 (D.D.C. 2011), the Court was presented with a far richer evidentiary picture — and plaintiffs were able not only to avoid summary judgment, but to win summary judgment themselves on certain of their claims. There, as here, the correctional officials had made efforts to reduce over-detentions and there, as here, plaintiffs argued that those efforts were ineffectual. But plaintiffs were able to carry their burden. They hired a statistical expert to sift through correctional records and provide reliable annual estimates of how many people had been over-detained. Id. at 269-70. What is more, they were able to estimate how many of those over-detentions were attributable to specific policies. Id. at 271. This allowed the Court to determine that the District of Columbia’s early efforts to reduce over-detentions were utterly ineffectual, allowing a grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs, and that the District’s later efforts were quite effective, allowing a grant of summary judgment for defendants (whether the District’s efforts during an intermediate period showed deliberate indifference required factfinding). Id. at 280-81. Plaintiffs in Barnes could also demonstrate precisely how long processing a release should take and how much longer it often took in practice. Id. at 278-79. This sort of data allowed plaintiffs to show deliberate indifference to over-detentions, even in the face of affirmative steps to improve matters. Appellants have not shown deliberate indifference here. We therefore affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for Appellees on all Eighth Amendment claims.

C Fourteenth Amendment Analysis

For the same reasons, we affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on all Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims. The District Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claims under the “more-specific-provision rule.” That rule holds that “if a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, such as the Fourth or Eighth Amendment, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.” United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 272 n.7, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997); see also Betts, 621 F.3d at 261. The District Court held that because the Third Circuit addresses over-detention under the rubric of the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiffs could not bring parallel claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of substantive due process.

Appellants and amicus argue that the more-specific-provision rule does not apply to all claims, because some plaintiffs were pretrial detainees, who are not protected by the Eighth Amendment. Our Court has always analyzed over- detention claims under the Eighth Amendment, unlike some other courts. See Barnes, 793 F.Supp.2d at 274-75 (“Overdetentions potentially violate the substantive component of the Due Process Clause.... ”). But we have applied the Eighth Amendment because each of our over-detention cases involved convicted and sentenced inmates. Montanez, 603 F.3d 243; Moore, 986 F.2d 682; Sample, 885 F.2d 1099.

Our precedent is clear that while the detention of sentenced inmates is governed by the Eighth Amendment, the treatment of pretrial detainees is governed by the Due Process Clause. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (“Due process requires that a pretrial detainee not be punished. A sentenced inmate, on the other hand, may be punished, although that punishment may not be ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment.”); Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 471 (3d Cir. 1987) (“Pretrial detainees are not within the ambit of the Eighth Amendment but are entitled to the protections of the Due Process clause.”); Hubbard v. Taylor, 399 F.3d 150, 164-67 (3d Cir. 2005) (same).

For pretrial detainees, therefore, there is no applicable provision more specific than the Due Process Clause and the more-specific-provision rule does not apply. A separate due process analysis is required.

The protections of the Eighth Amendment and Due Process Clauses are sometimes, but not always, the same. Hubbard, 399 F.3d at 164-67. We need not delve into the differences between those two analyses in this context, however. This is a suit against supervisory officials, for the creation of policies and practices. Supervisory policy-and-practice liability requires deliberate indifference. A.M. ex rel. J.M.K., 372 F.3d at 586. Thus, for the same reasons as in our Eighth Amendment analysis, we conclude that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment. We will affirm.

      . The District Court allowed the substitution of Coupe for Danberg as a defendant for purposes of prospective relief only.

      . Wilson v. Taylor, 597 F.Supp.2d 451, 457-58 (D. Del. 2009).

      . One COR employee, however, averred that the new computer system "caused more delays.” JA 163.

      . The parties dispute in the briefing exactly how “over-detention” should be defined and in particular whether over-detentions of a certain length of time should qualify. This issue is not material to this appeal.

      . Bell worked at COR for roughly one year between 2011 and 2012. She worked as a Records Clerk and Records Specialist during her employment, positions that involved work on release orders.

      . Mercado has owned and operated her own bail bond company since 2002 and posts bail for approximately 25 to 30 people in Delaware per month. She and her employees observe the release process after they post bond for their clients and communicate with COR during that process.

      . Dean worked as an attorney for the Delaware Office of the Public Defender from 1991 to 2010. When her clients were over-detained, she worked to secure their release.

      . At oral argument, Appellants claimed that those tables count only the over-detentions specifically brought to McBride's attention. This is not evident from the record, but if it were so, that would not provide any reliable metric for the actual number of over-detentions.

      . The District Court had jurisdiction over this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and exercised supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The District Court’s summary judgment constituted a final decision and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

      . Our precedent also describes the test for supervisor liability under the Eighth Amendment as a four-part test: "the plaintiff must identify a specific policy or practice that the supervisor failed to employ and show that: (1) the existing policy or practice created an unreasonable risk of the Eighth Amendment injury; (2) the supervisor was aware that the unreasonable risk was created; (3) the supervisor was indifferent to that risk; and (4) the injury resulted from the policy or practice.” Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 134 (3d Cir. 2001). But see Barkes v. First Corr. Med., Inc., 766 F.3d 307, 341 (3d Cir. 2014) (Hardiman, J., dissenting), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Taylor v. Barlces, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2042, 192 L.Ed.2d 78 (2015) (questioning validity of four-part test). For purposes of this litigation, the two formulations of the Eighth Amendment standard are functionally equivalent, each broadly requiring risk, knowledge, deliberate indifference and causation. We find the over-detention-specific description of our standard better structures our analysis in this case. In any event, because Plaintiffs fail to show deliberate indifference, as explained herein, they could not survive summary judgment under either standard.

      . Here, Appellees are the officials tasked with resolving the alleged problems. Appellants allege that structural features of COR cause a systemic over-detention problem. Only top administrators, not line staff processing individual releases, can increase staffing levels, foster a more open culture of communication or declare the creation of COR a success or failure. The problems alleged in this litigation "will not likely be resolved unless” top administrators like Appellees address them. Sample, 885 F.2d at 1110.

      . Whether the pre-2008 system in fact failed to meet constitutional standards is outside of our purview in this matter.

      . Even less indicative of deliberate indifference is Appellants' assertion that COR failed to track certain performance metrics, such as the number of lost files or the number of inmate letters received. No record evidence is put forward that could allow a finding that these metrics should have been used rather than the alternative forms of tracking and oversight employed at COR, much less that Appellees were deliberately indifferent for failing to use them.

      . They also argue that Plaintiffs' claims arose under a procedural due process framework rather than a substantive due process framework. This argument is waived. Plaintiffs' arguments below expressly identified their claims as being for substantive due process.

      . Having affirmed the District Court’s grants of summary judgment on the merits, we need not reach the other issues in the Court's opinion: qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, and class certification. We also need not reach the causation prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis.


author: PER CURIAM:

text:
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAIXIANG ZHU, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-4517
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Argued: October 28, 2016
    Decided: April 12, 2017

      ARGUED: Jessica Nicole Carmichael, HARRIS & CARMICHAEL, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher John Catizone, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for-Appellee. ON BRIEF: Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kaixiang Zhu was convicted by a jury of conspiring to commit immigration fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 371, and aiding and abetting fraud and misuse of immigration documents, see 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), charges stemming from a green card sting operation. Zhu appeals his conviction on various grounds. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

Zhu, a native of China, entered the United States in February 2001 using a J-l visa authorized for nonimmigrant exchange visitors. Although his J-l visa authorized only a temporary stay until August 2001, Zhu overstayed his visa and remained in the United States without authorization. Zhu subsequently married Xiu Yun Lu, a fellow Chinese citizen he had met in the United States. In 2004, Zhu’s wife unsuccessfully attempted to adjust her status to permanent legal resident, and an order of removal to China was entered against her. Likewise, Ming Hui Lu, Zhu’s brother-in-law and housemate, applied to adjust his status, but his application was denied and an order of removal was entered against him.

In 2011, federal agents commenced a sting operation in which Officer Mark Butler, who was operating undercover, posed as a private business owner offering to sell bona fide green cards which had been obtained illegally. Officer Butler, known to his contacts as “Andrew,” claimed that he had a relationship with American immigration officials through whom he could obtain green cards to sell, but Andrew indicated the price would be exorbitant — at least $25,000 apiece, and sometimes even in excess of $60,000. In this scheme, Andrew did not deal directly with individuals who wanted to obtain a green card without having to go through the proper legal channels; instead, he used “brokers” both to identify potential customers in their communities and to communicate with them. The brokers were also tasked with bringing their customers to Virginia for a face-to-face meeting with Andrew, which law enforcement agents secretly recorded.

Zhu was brought into the green card scheme by Chang Yun Hui (“Dr. Hui”), an acquaintance from New York who was a broker for Andrew. Dr. Hui spoke very little English but, according to Officer Butler, he always had someone to translate at hand. Their primary form of communication, however, was via email. Andrew told Dr. Hui that the green cards were very expensive and explained that “they were real green cards obtained fraudulently, and that- [they] could all go to jail if [they] didn’t do things exactly the right way.” J.A. 310. Officer Butler testified that he “wanted to have the price so high that people knew it was illegal.” J.A. 310.

In order to obtain one of the green cards offered by Andrew, would-be purchasers were required to provide certain documents to Dr. Hui, who would submit them to Andrew. Zhu gave Dr. Hui a copy of his Chinese passport, two passport photos, and a Form 1-485 to adjust status, which was filled out in English and in Zhu’s handwriting. Zhu’s Form 1-485 was incomplete and contained several misstatements, including, for example, Zhu’s assertion that he was applying “with” his wife to adjust status. J.A. 477. Likewise, Lu, Zhu’s brother-in-law, and Qiao Chan Zhang, Zhu’s sister-in-law, sought to purchase green cards from Andrew and provided passports and Form 1-485 applications to Dr. Hui. Like Zhu’s Form 1-485, the forms submitted by Lu and Zhang contained misstatements and omissions. Dr. Hui sent Zhu’s paperwork, along with the doeu-ments provided by Lu and Zhang, to Andrew. Andrew then asked Dr. Hui to bring his customers from New York to Virginia purportedly to meet Andrew and to be fingerprinted for their green cards.

In August 2011, Dr. Hui accompanied Zhu, Lu and Zhang, and 13 other customers to the Crystal City Hilton in Virginia. Dr. Hui brought his customers in small groups to a room rented by Andrew, which, unbeknownst to Dr. Hui and his customers, was wired for audio "and video recording. During each meeting, Andrew explained to the customers that “this isn’t an [ijmmigration office” and that “what we are doing is not legal. We can all go to jail.” J.A. 728. Andrew “provided several warnings ... to inform them that ... this is dangerous, [and] illegal.” J.A. 338. Nevertheless, Zhu permitted Andrew to fingerprint him.

For several months after the meeting, Andrew and Dr. Hui exchanged emails about the status of the green cards. In April 2012, Andrew sent an email to Dr. Hui, suggesting that he “relax” and that he was “working on all the stuff you ask for. [T]hese people need to realize that this is illegal and doesn’t [work] like it would if you go into the immigration office.” J.A. 191. On April 24, Dr. Hui responded, listing customers, including Zhu, that still wanted to pay Andrew for green cards:

I got your email, please do your best to help them do what they want, I will tell them to wait for your good news. Thank you! ... The other cards please follow this order to give them: mingxian chen, qiaochan zhang, baodi hu, yingjiao yang, meixia tian, kaiyang zhu, xiuqing wu, xuejiang chen, jinjian lin, jianling lin, jinshun zhu, yuewen zheng, wu lin. Please [reply]! Thank you!

DR. HUI

J.A. 191 (emphasis added).

Finally, in June 2012, Dr. Hui and his customers were told that the green cards were ready and that they could pick them up in exchange for cash at a hotel in Manassas, Virginia. Zhu, however, was not among the customers who appeared in Virginia to purchase a green card, and neither were his brother-in-law Lu or his sister-in-law Zhang. The customers who appeared in Virginia were arrested.

Dr. Hui was also arrested and charged in connection with the immigration fraud conspiracy. He cooperated with law enforcement agents, submitting to a post-arrest interview about the green card scheme. Agents prepared a report summarizing the details of Dr. Hui’s interview which reflected his clear understanding that the means by which he and his customers were obtaining green cards was illegal. According to the report, Dr. Hui explained that “ ‘Andrew’ told him (HUI) that he could get the green cards and that he (HUI) knew the process in obtaining green cards was illegal”; and Dr. Hui “indicated ‘Andrew’ did not mention about the clients’ green cards being obtained through fraudulent means, but that he (Hui) understood the paperwork for the green cards was not legitimate.” J.A. 757. Dr. Hui also “acknowledged that he knew it was an illegal process to mail-out the documents,” J.A. 759, and that he “knew that taking fingerprints was part of the process of obtaining the green card through fraud.” J.A. 760.

The report, however, contained a contradictory remark attributed to Dr. Hui. The report stated that Dr. Hui specifically identified four customers, including Zhu’s in-laws Lu and Zhang, whom he told that they were obtaining the green cards legally:

HUI stated that he advised the [four] individuals that ‘Andrew’s’, way of obtaining the green cards was legal and that the green cards are ‘real’ green cards. HUI stated that he knew the legal process' to obtain green cards was by applying through Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS).... HUI stated that he (HUI) did not think that the green card itself was fraudulent, but knew that the process in obtaining the green card was illegal. HUI stated he needed a green card himself and that he knew ‘Andrew’s’ way of obtaining one was not the proper way.

J.A. 758 (emphasis added). According to the report, Dr. Hui did not mention Zhu specifically during his interview with the agents. Dr. Hui pled guilty and was sentenced to fourteen months’ incarceration. On June 25, 2013, following his release from prison, Dr. Hui was removed to China.

In 2014, Zhu and Lu were apprehended in Arkansas; Zhang remained at large at the time of Zhu’s trial. Zhu was charged with conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 371, and aiding and abetting the fraud and misuse of immigration documents, see 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). Prior to trial, Zhu moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis that, by removing Dr. Hui, “the government deported a witness material and favorable to [Zhu’s] defense.” J.A. 63. The district court denied Zhu’s motion, concluding that Zhu had not shown that Dr. Hui’s testimony “would have been material and favorable to [the] defense in ways not merely cumulative to the testimony of available witnesses.” J.A. 158. Zhu also moved before and during trial to exclude from evidence an April 24, 2012, email from Dr. Hui to Andrew listing Dr. Hui’s customers who were interested in purchasing a green card after the meeting with Andrew. The district court disagreed and admitted Dr. Hui’s email. After a jury trial, Zhu was convicted on both counts.

On appeal, Zhu challenges the denial of these motions as well as the district court’s frequent interruptions of defense counsel’s examination of witnesses and argument to the jury. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

II.

Zhu contends that the removal of Dr. Hui violated his right to compulsory process under the Sixth Amendment and his right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The appropriate remedy, according to Zhu, was dismissal of the indictment. Thus, Zhu argues the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. We review a district court’s legal conclusions with respect to a motion to dismiss the indictment de novo, and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Perry, 757 F.3d 166, 171 (4th Cir. 2014).

A.

Prior to trial, Zhu moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis that, by removing Hui, the government “deported a witness material and favorable to [Zhu’s] defense.” J.A. 63. Pointing to a statement in the government’s report that Dr. Hui “advised [four specified] individuals that ‘Andrew’s’ way of obtaining the green cards was legal,”. J.A. 758, Zhu argued that, had he appeared as a witness, Dr. Hui would have testified that he advised all of his customers, including Zhu, that his way of obtaining the green cards was legal. Zhu’s primary defense at trial was that he lacked criminal intent — that he believed he was legally applying for a green card. Thus, Zhu contended that Dr. Hui’s “testimony bears directly on the intent element” of the charges against Zhu, and that the government knew this but removed Dr. Hui anyway. J.A. 65.

The district court denied Zhu’s motion, concluding that Zhu had not shown that Dr. Hui’s testimony “would have been material and favorable to [the] defense in ways not merely cumulative to the testimony of available witnesses.” J.A. 158. The court found “no basis in the record” to conclude that Dr. Hui would have testified “that he made [a] similar statement” — that obtaining green cards in this fashion was legal — “to all of the customers instead of just to that group of four.” J.A. 162. Moreover, the district court concluded that Dr. Hui’s “testimony on criminal intent would be cumulative to the testimony of other available witnesses,” id. in light of the fact that Zhu’s brother-in-law was available to testify about what Zhu was told about the legality of obtaining the green card through Dr. Hui. And, finally, the district court reasoned that even if Dr. Hui appeared and testified as Zhu claimed, his testimony, viewed “in the context of the entire record,” J.A. 161, was not reasonably likely to affect the judgment of the jury.

B.

The Sixth Amendment states that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” U.S. Const, amend. VI. In United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 102 S.Ct. 3440, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982), the Supreme Court made clear that this right is implicated by the deportation of an alien whom a criminal defendant wants to call as a witness at trial. The Court explained what a defendant must show to establish a Sixth Amendment claim under the Compulsory Process Clause:

[T]he right to compulsory process guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment suggests that more than the mere absence of testimony is necessary to establish a violation of the right. Indeed, the Sixth Amendment does not by its terms grant to a criminal defendant the right to secure the attendance and testimony of any and all witnesses: it guarantees him compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.... This language suggests that respondent cannot establish a violation of his constitutional right to compulsory process merely by showing that deportation of [witnesses] deprived him of their testimony. He must at least make some plausible showing of how their testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense.

Id. at 867, 102 S.Ct. 3440 (internal, quotation marks and citations omitted).

Of course, the removal of potential witnesses “deprives the defendant of an opportunity to interview the witnesses to determine precisely what favorable evidence they possess,” and thus “the defendant cannot be expected to render a detailed description of their lost testimony.” Id. at 873, 102 S.Ct. 3440. Nonetheless, the defendant must make some showing of materiality. Accordingly, a defendant raising a compulsory process claim must make “a plausible showing that the testimony of the deported witnesses would have been material and favorable to his defense, in ways not merely cumulative to the testimony of available witnesses.” Id.

And, given the clarity of the prejudice requirement in Valenzuela-Bemal, it is hardly surprising that the Circuit Courts of Appeal unanimously require this showing of prejudice that resulted from the absence of the deported witness. See, e.g., United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560, 578 (5th Cir. 2006) (“This first prong is universal: the defendant must show prejudice to his case.”).

A majority of the Circuits read Valenzuela-Bemal as establishing a second requirement as well — that the government acted in bad faith in deporting a key witness, in a conscious effort to gain a tactical advantage by suppressing exculpatory evidence. See United States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Damra, 621 F.3d 474, 489-90 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Iribe-Perez, 129 F.3d 1167, 1173 (10th Cir. 1997).

This court has not directly addressed whether Valenzuela-Bemal requires a showing that the government deported a material witness in bad faith. The government urges us to adopt the bad faith requirement, premised on the Court’s pronouncement in Valenzuela-Bemal that “immigration policy adopted by Congress justifies the prompt deportation of illegal-alien witnesses upon the Executive’s good-faith determination that they possess no evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal prosecution.” 458 U.S. at 872, 102 S.Ct. 3440. The district court found “not a scintilla of evidence of bad faith.” J.A. 160-61. Indeed, Zhu is in this particular fix because of his own decision to flee arrest and live as a fugitive in another part of the country for more than two years. We doubt the government is required to keep a removable alien in the country indefinitely on the off chance that a fugitive from justice is discovered in the distant future and needs the alien as a trial witness. We need not reach the issue of whether bad faith is an element of a compulsory process claim, however, because, as explained below, we conclude that Zhu failed to establish prejudice.

C.

Zhu argues that Dr. Hui would have testified that he told his customers, including Zhu, that he advised them that the green card scheme was legal. Such testimony, Zhu claims, would have been both material and favorable to his defense because the testimony “bears directly on the intent element of each charge in the indictment” and “would have established that the first time [Zhu] discovered the process was illegal was in the meeting in Virginia with the undercover agents, and that at that meeting, he gave his fingerprints, but never followed-up, and never returned.” Brief of Appellant at 21.

First, we note that Zhu’s contention that Dr. Hui would have furnished the defense material, favorable and exculpatory testimony rests on a thin reed. It is premised on a single sentence pulled from the government’s report of Dr. Hui’s interview indicating that Dr. Hui specified four customers whom he told that Andrew’s “way of obtaining the green cards was legal.” J.A. 758. Lu was one of the four customers specified by Dr. Hui, but Zhu was not and there is nothing in the report to suggest that Dr. Hui made a similar statement to every customer. Indeed, apart from that single statement, Dr. Hui repeatedly indicated during the interview that he understood Andrew’s process for obtaining green cards was illegal. There is no basis in the record for concluding that Dr. Hui would have testified that he told Zhu their activities were legal. Zhu’s argument is grounded in speculation, and he cannot satisfy the materiality requirement with speculative evidence. Cf. United States v. Shealey, 641 F.3d 627, 634 (4th Cir. 2011) (defendant must demonstrate “actual prejudice, as opposed to mere speculative prejudice” to be entitled to dismissal of indictment under Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment).

Moreover, even if Dr. Hui had appeared and testified that he stated to Zhu that they were not illegally obtaining green cards, such testimony simply would not have been “material and favorable to his defense, in ways not merely cumulative to the testimony of available witnesses.” Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. at 873, 102 S.Ct. 3440. Evidence is material “only if there is a reasonable likelihood that the testimony could have affected the judgment of the trier of fact.” Id. at 874, 102 S.Ct. 3440. Materiality “must be evaluated in the context of the entire record.” Id. at 868, 102 S.Ct. 3440 (internal quotation marks omitted). The post-arrest report shows that Dr. Hui was well aware of the illegality of obtaining green cards on the black market. Zhu’s Form 1-485 contained numerous false statements regarding his employment status, how he entered the United States and the basis on which Zhu claimed he was entitled to a green card. And, it is undisputed that Zhu allowed his fingerprints to be taken even after having been warned that what he was doing was illegal and that he could do jail time for purchasing green cards.

Zhu cannot show that Dr. Hui’s speculative testimony would not have been “merely cumulative to the testimony of available witnesses.” Id. at 873, 102 S.Ct. 3440. Zhu contends that the report of the interview demonstrates that Dr. Hui told all of his customers that obtaining a green card through him was legal. Dr. Hui is not the only witness who could offer testimony as to what he informed his customers regarding the legality of the scheme. Zhu’s brother-in-law Lu was with Zhu at the August 25, 2011, meeting when Dr. Hui introduced Zhu, Lu and his other customers to Andrew. Lu would have been in a position to verify that Dr. Hui told him and Zhu that they were not breaking the law by obtaining the green cards outside of the USCIS. Zhu did not call Lu as a witness, however, nor did Zhu call any other individual who attempted to purchase a green card with Dr. Hui’s assistance. Because other witnesses could have provided the same testimony that Zhu sought from Dr. Hui, Dr. Hui’s testimony was cumulative and therefore not “material” within the meaning of Valenzuela-Bemal.

Finally, to the extent that Zhu styles this argument as a due process claim, we likewise reject it for the foregoing reasons. Valenzuela-Bemal made clear that “the same materiality requirement [that applies to a compulsory process claim] obtains with respect to a due process claim” under the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 872, 102 S.Ct. 3440. To the extent a criminal defendant claims that the deportation of a witness was so fundamentally unfair that it “fatally infected the trial,” his claim fails “unless there is some explanation of how [the witnesses’] testimony would have been favorable and material.” Id.

III.

Zhu next argues that the district court erred in admitting into evidence the April 24 email from Dr. Hui providing Andrew a list of customers, including Zhu, who still wanted to obtain a green card after meeting Andrew. On appeal, Zhu focuses on two grounds for excluding the email: (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish the authenticity of the email under Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and (2) the email contained inadmissible hearsay in violation of Rule 802. The district court denied Zhu’s pre-trial motion to exclude, and Zhu renewed these objections at trial when the government moved to admit the email. We review a district court’s decision to admit evidence over a Rule 802 or Rule 901 objection for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Cornell, 780 F.3d 616, 629 (4th Cir. 2015) (admission of evidence over Rule 901 objection was not abuse of discretion); United States v. Bumpass, 60 F.3d 1099, 1101-02 (4th Cir. 1995) (admission of evidence over hearsay objection reviewed for abuse of discretion).

A.

Rule 901

First, Zhu argues that the government could not properly authenticate Dr. Hui’s email of April 24, 2012, as required by Rule 901. Under Rule 901, “[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). It is up to the jury to decide “whether evidence is that which the proponent claims.” United States v. Vidacak, 553 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 2009). It is “[t]he district court’s role ... to serve as gatekeeper in assessing whether the proponent has offered a satisfactory foundation from which the jury could reasonably find that the evidence is authentic.” Id. “The burden to authenticate under Rule 901 is not high — only a prima facie showing is required.” Id.

Zhu argues that “there was significant doubt as to the authenticity of the email purportedly from Dr. Hui,” Brief of Appellant at 33, on April 24, 2012, in light of these facts: the email was written in English; Dr. Hui spoke little or no English and used an unknown translator to help him write his emails to Andrew; a third party, “Mr. Liu,” wrote an email on May 23, 2011, using Dr. Hui’s email account; and Dr. Hui’s entire collection of emails were not signed the same way every time but used multiple versions of “Dr. Hui” in closing. The government produced neither Dr. Hui nor the translator to testify that Dr. Hui did in fact author the emails and that they were translated correctly. The district court disagreed, however, and found “enough evidence to meet the low threshold that must be met under Rule 901, that this came from [Dr. Hui].” J.A. 375. The district court also concluded that “even though we don’t know the identity of the interpreter, ... we don’t have any reason ... to doubt that it’s a reasonable interpretation [of] what Dr. Hui was saying. He had, after all, a history and a series of transactions with the agent, and these are- all ... relating to facts that Hui and the agent knew about.” J.A. 374-75.

We agree with the district court that the government offered enough evidence for the jury to conclude that the email was what the government as the proponent claimed it was: an email from Dr. Hui listing customers, including Zhu, who were still interested in obtaining green cards after the hotel meeting with the undercover agents in Virginia. Officer Butler, who played the role of Andrew in the sting, testified the April 24 email was part of an email “conversation between [himself] and Dr. Hui.” J.A. 350. Officer Butler explained that Dr. Hui’s email was sent from a “secret e-mail address that only Dr. Hui and I knew about,” J.A. 351, and contained information “only he would know,” J.A. 350. This testimony is sufficient to clear the relatively low prima facie hurdle. The reasons identified by Zhu to doubt the authenticity of the email go to its weight, not its admissibility, and counsel for Zhu was free to highlight these deficiencies during cross examination of Officer Butler. The district court’s job was not to “find that the evidence [was] necessarily what the proponent claim[ed], but only that there [was] sufficient evidence that the jury ultimately might do so.” Vidacak, 553 F.3d at 349 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the email over Zhu’s Rule 901 objection.

B.

Rules 801 and 802

We next turn to Zhu’s hearsay-objection. Zhu contends that Dr. Hui’s email contained two layers of hearsay. Zhu argues that the April 24 email contained Dr. Hui’s out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The district court concluded that Dr. Hui’s email qualified as the statements of a co-conspirator, and therefore was not hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) (excluding from the definition of hearsay a statement “made by the party’s coconspir-ator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy”). Zhu does not challenge this ruling on appeal.

Zhu instead focuses his challenge on what he contends was a second layer of hearsay. Because Dr. Hui did not speak English, he received help from an unknown person or persons in communicating with Andrew by email. Thus, Zhu contends that it was “unknown whether the translator acted purely as a conduit for the language” and thus “it was the translator’s statement and not simply Dr. Hui’s [statement] being offered by the government.” Brief of Appellant at 33-34.

Our analysis of whether an interpreter’s translation constituted hearsay is governed by Vidacak, in which we considered whether the out-of-court statements of an interpreter constituted hearsay where he was translating for a criminal defendant who was being interviewed by an immigration officer. See 553 F.3d at 351-52. We explained that “except in unusual circumstances, an interpreter is no more than a language conduit and therefore his translation does not create an additional level of hearsay.” Id. at 352 (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, we recognized “a narrow exception that is applied where the particular facts of a case cast significant doubt upon the accuracy of a translated confession.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). See also United States v. Shibin, 722 F.3d 233, 248 (4th Cir. 2013) (“[interpreted testimony might be unusable without the interpreter’s presence,” if “the particular facts of a case cast significant doubt upon the accuracy of a translated [statement].” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

In order to determine if this “narrow” exception applies, Vidacak identifies four factors for district courts to consider: “1) which party supplied the interpreter; 2) whether the interpreter had a motive to mislead or distort; 3) the interpreter’s qualifications and language skills; and 4) whether actions taken subsequent to the conversation were consistent with the statements translated.” 553 F.3d at 352 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court recognized that it could not fully evaluate these four factors because the identity of Dr. Hui’s translator was unknown. The court therefore directly examined the underlying question which these four factors were designed to help courts answer: whether the particular circumstances of the case cast doubt on the accuracy of a translated statement. The court found that the email was part of a series of messages between Dr. Hui and the undercover agent “all relating to facts that Hui and the agent knew about.” J.A. 375. Based on this, the district court appeared to hold that the interpreter acted as a mere “language conduit” and “[did] not create an additional level of hearsay,” J.A. 372, even if that conclusion was not explicit in its ruling from the bench.

As Vidacak makes clear, it is the “unusual” case that requires an interpreter’s presence to avoid a hearsay objection. 553 F.3d at 352. In this case, the district court had little basis for concluding that the interpreter used by Dr. Hui “harbored any bias against” Zhu or “had any motive to mislead or distort.” Id. at 352. On the contrary, Agent Butler’s testimony supports the district, court’s view that it was reasonable to believe that the April 24 email reflected what Dr. Hui intended to say. Butler testified that the messages came from a “secret email address that only Dr. Hui and [Butler] knew about,” and contained information from past conversations or meetings between the two individuals. J.A. 351. Additionally, the emails frequently referenced transactions and facts known only to Dr. Hui and the agent, suggesting that the translations were reliable.

We hold that, on this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the April 24 email from Dr. Hui.

IV.

Finally, Zhu contends that the district court improperly interfered with his presentation of a defense by repeatedly interrupting counsel’s questions to witnesses and interfering with counsel’s closing argument to the jury, essentially taking on the role of a prosecutor. We review this assertion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1272 (4th Cir. 1995) (abuse of discretion standard of review applied to allegation that district court “departed] from its required impartial role by improperly questioning the relevance of defense exhibits, limiting witness testimony, and extensively interrupting the examination of defense witnesses to impose its own questions”).

The district court’s role is “not that of an umpire or of a moderator at a town meeting,” but rather “to see that a case on trial is presented in such way as to be understood by the jury, as well as by himself.” United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768, 775 (4th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, a district court is empowered to question witnesses, see Fed. R. Evid. 614(b), and, indeed, the court “should not hesitate to ask questions for the purpose of developing the facts,” Parodi, 703 F.2d at 775.

In discharging its duty to see that the evidence is properly developed, the district court should be mindful of its responsibility “to conduct a jury trial in a general atmosphere of impartiality.” Castner, 50 F.3d at 1272 (internal quotation marks omitted). When questioning witnesses, the court must be especially careful “not [to] create an appearance of partiality by continued intervention on the side of one of the parties or undermine the effective functioning of counsel through repeated interruption of the examination of witnesses.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

A review of the record, the government points out, reveals that the district court in this case interrupted the examination of witnesses by attorneys for the government virtually the same number of times it interrupted defense counsel’s examinations. Zhu does not dispute this assertion. Therefore, the district court’s interruptions during the presentation of evidence, assessed from a standpoint of sheer volume, did not create an appearance of partiality on the part of the court.

Zhu argues that despite the fact that the district court’s interruptions were relatively even in number, the interruptions differed in tone and effect and created the impression that the court favored the government. Toward this end, Zhu offers a few examples — presumably the most egregious instances he could find — of the court’s interference with Zhu’s presentation of evidence during the trial.

First, Zhu points to defense counsel’s cross examination of Officer Butler, i.e., “Andrew,” during which counsel attempted to introduce 150-200 pages of emails between Dr. Hui and Andrew. The district court raised its own objection to the volume of the documents and “chastis[ed Zhu’s] counsel for not providing them to the agent sooner.” Brief of Appellant at 40. In response, the government suggests that the court was merely trying “to prevent a large number of extraneous emails from being admitted into evidence and made available to the jury.” Brief of Appellee at 46. The district court then permitted defense counsel to admit and use specific, individual emails during cross examination. We agree that the district court acted within its discretion by proceeding in this fashion rather than accepting into evidence 150-200 pages of emails at the same time. And, more importantly, this relatively brief intrusion by the district court can in no sense be- viewed as having “creat[ed] an appearance of partiality.” Castner, 50 F.3d at 1272 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Zhu next highlights numerous comments made by the district court while defense counsel questioned a witness regarding whether she “[knew] anything about Mr. Zhu working in Virginia Beach.” J.A. 555. The court would not permit the witness to answer the question on the basis that the question called for hearsay. Instead, the court instructed counsel to rephrase the question “in a way that focuses only on her personal knowledge, what she observed, what she knows, without telling us what other people told her.” J.A. 557. When defense counsel made several attempts to rephrase the question, the district court interrupted numerous' times to remind counsel to establish the “source or basis” of the witness’s knowledge. J.A. 560.

Zhu’s primary complaint seems to be that the district court interposed hearsay objections while the government remained silent. Zhu does not suggest, however, that the court’s concern about hearsay was mistaken. And, even if the district court’s conclusion that the witness was being asked to give hearsay testimony was in error, the court did not create an improper appearance of partiality in light of the entire record, which includes instances where the court interrupted the government’s attorneys in a similar fashion.

Finally, Zhu contends that it was improper and prejudicial for the district court to interrupt defense counsel’s reference to “reasonable doubt” during closing argument. To the extent the district court merely explained that there would be no instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt, the court’s statement was certainly consistent with our law. See United States v. Headspeth, 852 F.2d 753, 755 (4th Cir. 1988) (‘We have frequently admonished district courts not to attempt to define reasonable doubt in their instructions to the jury absent a specific request from the jury itself ... on the theory that the term reasonable doubt has a self-evident meaning comprehensible to the lay juror, which judicial efforts to define generally do more to obscure than to illuminate.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), abrogated on other grounds, Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990).

With regard to the court’s instruction that the jury disregard part of counsel’s argument, it is unclear what the jury was supposed to disregard, particularly in light of the fact that counsel was permitted to finish her argument that reasonable doubt is a very demanding standard of proof. We do not find that the district court created the appearance of partiality with its comments during closing argument.

In sum, we conclude that the district court discharged its duty to conduct the trial “in a general atmosphere of impartiality,” Castner, 50 F.3d at 1272, and the court’s comments and interruptions during Zhu’s presentation of evidence, either by themselves or taken together as a whole, did not undermine the impartial quality of the proceedings. Accordingly, we reject this challenge to Zhu’s conviction.

V.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

      . In the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Congress authorized the State Department “to provide, by grant, contract, or otherwise, for ... educational exchanges ... by financing visits and interchanges between the United States and other countries of students, trainees, teachers, instructors, and professors.” 22 U.S.C. § 2452(a)(1). The State Department, in turn, created the Exchange Visitor Program "to provide foreign nationals with opportunities to participate in educational and cultural programs in the United States and return home to share their experiences.” 22 C.F.R. § 62.1(b).

      . Dr. Hui was a doctor of. traditional Chinese medicine; the full scope of what this entails is unclear from the record.


author: DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:

text:
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond BULLETTE, III, a/k/a Scrap, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-4408
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Argued: March 24, 2017
    Decided: April 20, 2017

      ARGUED: Jaime Ann Santos, GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Michael Thomas Packard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael Lawlor, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosen-stein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Leah Jo Bressack, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:

This appeal arises out of a warrantless vehicle search that the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) conducted at an active crime scene. Defendant-Appellant Raymond Bullette, III, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I.

A.

In 2012, DEA Special Agent Brian Wil-ley (“Agent Willey”) and his team began investigating a Phencyclidine (“PCP”) drug manufacturing and distribution conspiracy they believed to be based in California. In February 2013, local law enforcement responded to a call about a house fire in the California desert, near Lake Los Angeles. Investigation of the fire revealed chemical containers of various sizes used in PCP manufacturing. Local law enforcement asked the DEA to investigate whether the property was in fact a PCP lab.

During the investigation, neighbors told Agent Willey’s team that they had “been smelling strong chemical odors in the air for approximately two years before” the fire. J.A. 96. Law enforcement asked the neighbors to call if they observed any vehicles or strange activity on the property.

A few months later, on the evening of May 31, 2013, the local sheriffs department responded to a neighbor’s report of suspicious activity on the property. Upon arriving at approximately 1:00 a.m., the deputies saw three vehicles parked by a plywood shed in an open field — a Pontiac sedan, a minivan, and a Toyota pick-up truck. Law enforcement found all the vehicles unlocked, and the Toyota’s doors open. The deputies conducted a safety sweep around the area and found no one on the property. Agent Willey arrived at the scene around 3:00 a.m.

The deputies and Agent Willey observed evidence that suggested someone had been manufacturing PCP on the property: Near the vehicles and shed they found large drums containing chemicals used in the PCP manufacturing process and garbage cans containing PCC crystals (a precursor to PCP). Agent Willey testified that, based on his experience with the DEA’s clandestine laboratory team, this scene was consistent with a PCP laboratory. It also appeared that someone had left the property hurriedly: Law enforcement found recently eaten food on top of the Pontiac’s closed trunk, abandoned personal items scattered around the property, and fresh footprints leading away from the property. Based on this information, law enforcement declared the area a crime scene.

Agent Willey and his team searched all three vehicles. The Pontiac — the only vehicle at issue here — had no license plate and no visible registration tag. On top of the Pontiac’s trunk law enforcement found partially eaten food and a receipt for food purchased the previous day in Los Ange-les, California. From outside the Pontiac, law enforcement could plainly see that it contained a backpack, amber liquid in bottles that Agent Willey believed to be finished PCP (which later turned out to be Pine-Sol), cellphones, and various documents. Agent Willey testified that his team searched the vehicles because (1) standard DEA practice was to impound and inventory vehicles when no one was present to claim them, (2) he had safety concerns related to possible explosives in the vehicles and the vehicles’ proximity to explosive materials on the property, and (3) he wanted to identify the registered owner(s) of the vehicles. Agent Willey opened the Pontiac’s doors to conduct a search at' around 6:00 a.m.; law enforcement never obtained a warrant to search the Pontiac.

Several pieces of evidence inside the Pontiac linked Defendant to the vehicle and the PCP conspiracy. The deputies found an assortment of documents containing Defendant’s name and address inside the Pontiac’s unlocked interior and glove compartment. Agent Willey and his team also found multiple cellphones inside the Pontiac. DEA agents later obtained a warrant for three cellphones that were still operational. A search of one of the cellphones found in the passenger’s seat provided evidence suggesting that Defendant had used that cellphone to arrange drug deliveries.

B.

A grand jury indicted Defendant for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the Pontiac on the ground that Agent Willey and his team should have obtained a warrant between the time when Agent Willey arrived on the scene— 3:00 a.m. — and when the search began— around 6:00 a.m. Assuming, without finding, that Defendant had standing to contest the search, the district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. It concluded that the warrantless search was reasonable because (1) it was necessary for officer safety, and (2) law enforcement would have inevitably discovered the contents of the Pontiac after impounding it and conducting an inventory search. A jury convicted Defendant after a four-day trial, and Defendant timely appealed.

II.

On appeal Defendant argues that no exception to the warrant requirement justified the search at issue. Defendant further maintains that the district court erred in finding that law enforcement would have inevitably discovered the evidence at issue because the government did not submit evidence of a standard DEA impoundment-and-inventory procedure, and Agent Willey did not testify about the specifics of such a procedure.

The government counters that an officer-safety-based exigent-circumstances exception and the automobile exception justified the warrantless search because law enforcement had probable cause to believe that the Pontiac contained dangerous material related to PCP manufacturing. The government also claims that the district court correctly applied the inevitable-discovery doctrine because, based on Agent Willey’s testimony concerning DEA standard practice, it was clear that law enforcement would have impounded the Pontiac and inventoried all of its contents.

“In considering the appeal of a denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Slocumb, 804 F.3d 677, 681 (4th Cir. 2015). “We further construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the government — the prevailing party below.” Id.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm on the basis of the inevitable-discovery doctrine. We therefore do not reach the question of whether the automobile exception or an exigent-cireumstances-based exception to the warrant requirement applies.

A.

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.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule normally prevents the government from using evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search against the victim of that search. See Utah v. Strieff, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2056, 2061, 195 L.Ed.2d 400 (2016). However, as both the Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly explained, the exclusionary rule is subject to certain exceptions. Id.; Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 441-42, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); United States v. Hill, 849 F.3d 195, 200 (4th Cir. 2017).

The inevitable-discovery doctrine constitutes one such exception and allows the government- to use information obtained from an otherwise unreasonable search if it can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that law enforcement would have “ultimately or inevitably” discovered the evidence by “lawful means.” Nix, 467 U.S. at 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501; see also Strieff, 136 S.Ct. at 2061. “Lawful means” include an inevitable search falling within an exception to the warrant requirement, such as an inventory search, that would have inevitably uncovered the evidence in question. United States v. Allen, 159 F.3d 832, 841 (4th Cir. 1998). Whether law enforcement would have inevitably discovered the evidence by lawful means is a question of fact, and we thus accord great deference to the district court’s findings. Id. at 838-39; see also Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 543-44, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988).

B.

An inventory search of an automobile is lawful (1) where the circumstances reasonably justified seizure or impoundment, and (2) law enforcement conducts the inventory search according to routine and standard procedures designed to secure the vehicle or its contents. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371-76, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); United States v. Brown, 787 F.2d 929, 931-32 & n.3 (4th Cir. 1986). Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we agree that the inevitable-discovery doctrine applies here on this basis.

1.

Impoundment constitutes a reasonable course of action when the owner of a vehicle abandons it, or law enforcement cannot identify the owner. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 375, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); Brown, 787 F.2d at 932-33. This remains true even if law enforcement has alternatives to impounding the vehicle. See Brown, 787 F.2d at 932-33.

The circumstances confronting the DEA agents at the crime scene support a finding that impoundment was a reasonable course of action. See Opperman, 428 U.S. at 375, 96 S.Ct. 3092; Brown, 787 F.2d at 932-33. Here, law enforcement encountered the Pontiac with no visible license plate or registration — in what appeared to be a state of recent abandonment, and they could not identify the owner of the Pontiac. Agent Willey’s testimony substantiated the finding that DEA standard practice called for impoundment of the Pontiac. In addition, safety concerns added to the reasonableness of impoundment. See United States v. Ford, 986 F.2d 57, 60 (4th Cir. 1993). Agent Willey could plainly see two bottles through the unlocked Pontiac’s window, which, in his professional opinion, could have contained PCP. Explosive materials used in PCP manufacturing surrounded the Pontiac, and it was reasonable to conclude that drug manufacturers did not carry those materials to the property on foot. Furthermore, that same property had caught fire before because of similar explosives. These circumstances reasonably justified impoundment.

2.

The government need not provide a written inventory policy to prove that a law enforcement agency conducts its inventory searches according to routine and standard procedures so long as the district court has sufficient evidence to ensure that the practice conforms to our precedent. See Ford, 986 F.2d at 60. We have held that an inventory search of all of a vehicle’s contents is reasonable if the agent who conducted the search followed a practice to do so for all impounded vehicles. See Brown, 787 F.2d at 932-33.

Agent Willey provided sufficient testimony for the district court to find that the DEA had a standard inventory procedure pertaining to all impounded vehicles and would have inevitably discovered the challenged evidence by conducting an inventory search according to routine and standard DEA procedures. See Ford, 986 F.2d at 60. Even the most circumscribed inventory procedures call for an inventory of unsecured items located in an unlocked vehicle’s interior. See Opperman, 428 U.S. at 375-76, 96 S.Ct. 3092; United States v. Matthews, 591 F.3d 230, 237-38 (4th Cir. 2009). Such basic procedures would have uncovered the incriminating cellphone found on the passenger’s seat and the documents strewn throughout the unlocked Pontiac’s interior. As for documents found in the glove compartment, we note that both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have “recognized that standard inventories often include an examination of the glove compartment, since it is a customary place for documents of ownership and registration.” Opperman, 428 U.S. at 372, 96 S.Ct. 3092. Here, although Agent Willey did not guide the district court step-by-step through the DEA’s impoundment-and-inventory procedure, he did explain that identifying the registered owner of the vehicle was part of standard DEA practice. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the DEA would routinely search a glove compartment under these circumstances. See Opperman, 428 U.S. at 376 & n.10, 96 S.Ct. 3092; see also United States v. Banks, 482 F.3d 733, 740 (4th Cir. 2007).

III.

In short, we have never required the government to provide a written im-poundment-and-inventory policy or elicit step-by-step testimony concerning such a policy to meet its burden under the inevitable-discovery doctrine. The government meets its burden and this court can affirm on inevitable-discovery grounds if the district court can assess the inevitability and reasonableness of a hypothetical inventory search from testimony provided by a law-enforcement official — such as DEA Agent Willey here. See Ford, 986 F.2d at 60; United States v. Mancera-Londono, 912 F.2d 373, 375-76 (9th Cir. 1990) (crediting DEA agent’s testimony about unwritten procedures the DEA follows for impounding and inventorying automobiles in an inevitable-discovery case); see also United States v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866, 872-73 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Frank, 864 F.2d 992, 1002-05 (3d Cir. 1988); United States v. Okiyama, No. 93-10569, 1994 WL 198632, at *1 & n.1 (9th Cir. May 19, 1994) (unpublished). As explained above, the government has met its burden in this case. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.

      . The Pontiac was located between the other two vehicles. Law enforcement later determined that the Pontiac was registered to a Damian Robinson.

      . Defendant also argues that the district court should have required the government to prove his prior convictions to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt before subjecting him to a mandatory sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). However, as Defendant conceded at oral argument, Supreme Court precedent forecloses this challenge. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); see also Alleyne v. United States, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). Although the Supreme Court has expressed doubt about the continuing validity of Almendarez-Toires, it "remains good law, and we may not disregard it unless and until the Supreme Court holds to the contrary.” United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2014).

      . The DEA also correctly sought a warrant for the cellphone before searching its contents. Riley v. California, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2485, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014); see also United States v. Arellano, 410 Fed.Appx. 603, 606-07 (4th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished) (holding that the district court did not err in applying inevitable-discovery doctrine to evidence found on a cellphone seized from a warrantless vehicle search for which law enforcement obtained a warrant before searching).