US v. Carmelo
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS EDWARD CARMELO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cr-00153-F-ALL)
December 13, 2007
December 18, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Carlos Edward Carmelo appeals his jury conviction and fifty-one month sentence on one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On appeal, Carmelo claims only that the district court erred by allowing the Government to present
testimony about a suppressed firearm, thereby making Carmelo choose between exercising his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him and his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. According to Carmelo, had he challenged the witnesses' testimony regarding the suppressed firearm's existence, he would have opened the door to the firearm's admission and vitiated the district court's suppression order. Finding no error, we affirm the district court's judgment. Because Carmelo asserts this constitutional error for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. v. Walker, 112 F.3d 163, 166 (4th Cir. 1997). See United States
To demonstrate plain
error, Carmelo must establish that error occurred, that it was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights. See United Carmelo
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547-48 (4th Cir. 2005). has failed to meet this burden.
Because police arrived at Carmelo's residence in response to a 911 call and therefore had a legitimate reason for peering into Carmelo's vehicle, the district court correctly determined
- 2 -
that police could testify about initially seeing the firearm in the vehicle even if the firearm was later suppressed as unlawfully seized. See Alvarez v. Montgomery County, 147 F.3d 354, 358 (4th
Cir. 1998) (recognizing that an officer's lawful entry onto a defendant's property is not diminished even if the officer later violates the Fourth Amendment). Moreover, several months after the weapon was observed in Carmelo's vehicle, Carmelo admitted to police that the weapon belonged to him. Because it is undisputed
that this evidence did not emanate from the unlawful seizure by police, the district court correctly allowed the Government to present testimony about the firearm. Cf. Segura v. United States,
468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984) (holding that the exclusionary rule precludes the introduction of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure). In any event, given the overwhelming evidence presented by the Government regarding Carmelo's possession of three other firearms, we find that even if the district court did err, the error was harmless. See Hughes, 401 F.3d at 548 (holding that the
error must "actually affect the outcome of the proceedings") (internal quotation marks omitted). district court's judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 3 -
decisional process. AFFIRMED
- 4 -
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?