715 Fed.Appx. 740 (9th Cir. 2018), 17-50187, United States v. Taylor

Docket Nº:17-50187
Citation:715 Fed.Appx. 740
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph Deon TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Adam Paul Schleifer, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Wesley Gorman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Craig Anthony Harbaugh, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Ashfaq Gani Chowdhury, ...
Judge Panel:Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, Chief District Judge.
Case Date:March 21, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 740

715 Fed.Appx. 740 (9th Cir. 2018)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Ralph Deon TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50187

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 21, 2018

Argued and Submitted March 6, 2018 Pasadena, California

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00805-RGK-1

Adam Paul Schleifer, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Wesley Gorman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Craig Anthony Harbaugh, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Ashfaq Gani Chowdhury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Brianna Fuller Mircheff, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA— Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,[*] Chief District Judge.

MEMORANDUM [**]

Appellant Ralph Taylor appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition and a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Taylor asserts that three statements he made to officers while they searched his apartment should have been suppressed as a result of an un-Mirandized custodial interrogation. Specifically, Taylor argues that his statement identifying a jacket as his, his statement implying that ammunition found in the apartment was his, and his statement, "its all over," when officers found a firearm in what appeared to be his bedroom, should have been suppressed. Despite Taylors failure to object to the admissibility of the statements in his pretrial Motion in Limine, because the district court explicitly ruled on the admissibility of Taylors statements, we review de novo . See United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 1991) ("A pretrial motion in limine preserves for appeal the issue of admissibility of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP