USA v. John Albert Flores

Filing 920101230

Opinion

Download PDF
[D O NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS N o . 09-16376 ________________________ D . C. Docket No. 09-00024-CR-A-N U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DECEMBER 30, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN ALBERT FLORES, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ A p p eal from the United States District Court fo r the Middle District of Alabama _________________________ (D ecem b er 30, 2010) B efo re TJOFLAT, HILL and ALARCON,* Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM: Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. * Appellant John Albert Flores ("Flores") entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of knowing and willfully possessing with intent to distribute five k ilo g ram s or more of a controlled substance, in this case cocaine hydrochloride, a S ch ed u le II Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Pursuant to the plea agreement, Flores reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial o f his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his tractor trailer p erfo rm ed after a routine traffic stop. He now appeals the denial of his motion to sup p ress. Flores filed his motion to suppress on March 17, 2009. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, and, on April 7, 2009, an evidentiary hearing was h eld . Following that hearing, on May 14, 2009, the magistrate judge issued a R ep o rt and Recommendation recommending that the motion to suppress be denied. Flores objected to that Report and Recommendation on May 28, 2009. The district co u rt conducted a de novo review of the evidence and adopted the magistrate ju d g e's Report and Recommendation. Our review of the record of the suppression hearing convinces us that the fin d in g of the magistrate judge and the district court that Flores consented to a search of his tractor trailer is not clearly erroneous and that the court properly ap p lied the Fourth Amendment to that finding. The judgment of the district court 2 is therefore A F F IR M E D . 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?