United States v. Medina, 110615 FED11, 15-10478

Docket Nº:15-10478
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRANDON L. MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BRANDON L. MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10478

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

November 6, 2015

DO NOT PUBLISH

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D. C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60103-BB-1

Before HULL, MARCUS and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

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. Const. amend. IV. A reasonableness analysis under the Fourth Amendment focuses on the circumstances viewed objectively, regardless of an individual officer's state of mind. Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 404 (2006). Central to the protections the Fourth Amendment provides is "the right of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP