631 Fed.Appx. 682 (11th Cir. 2015), 15-10478, United States v. Medina
|Citation:||631 Fed.Appx. 682|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRANDON L. MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant|
|Attorney:||For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Daniel Matzkin, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Sally M. Richardson, Kathleen Mary Salyer, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney's Office, MIAMI, FL; Marc Anton, U.S. Attorney's Office, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL; Mark Lester, U.S. Attorney's Office, WEST PALM BEACH, F...|
|Judge Panel:||Before HULL, MARCUS and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 06, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. D. C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60103-BB-1.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Daniel Matzkin, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Sally M. Richardson, Kathleen Mary Salyer, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney's Office, MIAMI, FL; Marc Anton, U.S. Attorney's Office, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL; Mark Lester, U.S. Attorney's Office, WEST PALM BEACH, FL.
For BRANDON L. MEDINA, Defendant - Appellant: Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, MIAMI, FL; Michael D. Spivack, Gail M. Stage, Federal Public Defender's Office, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL.
Before HULL, MARCUS and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Brandon Medina appeals his convictions for one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and one count of possession with the intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, Medina argues that: (1) the district court erred when it denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence found during and derivative of a purported " protective sweep" of his rented bedroom occurring after officers searched the home's common areas pursuant to consent given by the homeowner, McKenzie Israel; and (2) the district court violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment when it refused to allow him to cross-examine witnesses and make certain arguments. After thorough review, we affirm.
A district court's ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Timmann, 741 F.3d 1170, 1177 (11th Cir. 2013). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and the court's application of the law to the facts de novo. Id. Ambiguities in the record are resolved in favor of the party that prevailed below. United States v. Delancy, 502 F.3d 1297, 1313 n.10 (11th Cir. 2007). We allot substantial deference to the factfinder in reaching credibility determinations with respect to witness testimony. United States v. McPhee, 336 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003). We review the district court's restrictions on cross-examination for clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1295 (11th Cir. 2009).
First, we find no merit to Medina's claim that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress. The Fourth Amendment provides that " [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP