USA v. Dunston

Filing 511130892

USA v. Dunston

Doc. 511130892

Case: 09-10115

Document: 00511130892

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/03/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-10115 S u m m a r y Calendar June 3, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in tiff-A p p e lle e v. R O D E R I C K DUNSTON, also known as Pooh, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:07-CR-145-4

B e fo r e KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* R o d e r ic k Dunston was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and p o s s e s s with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Dunston t o a mandatory life sentence. D u n s to n argues that the district court reversibly erred when it denied his p r e t ria l motion to suppress statements he made during a custodial interrogation b y DEA agents without benefit of warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-10115

Document: 00511130892 Page: 2 No. 09-10115

Date Filed: 06/03/2010

U .S . 436 (1966). When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we review q u e s tio n s of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error, and evidence is v ie w e d in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in the district c o u r t. United States v. Santiago, 410 F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir. 2005). The district c o u r t's denial of the motion to suppress is subject to the harmless error rule. See U n ite d States v. Garcia-Ruiz, 546 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 2008). "A suspect is . . . `in custody' for Miranda purposes when placed under formal arrest or w h e n a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood the s it u a t io n to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which t h e law associates with formal arrest." United States v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 5 9 3 , 596 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc). The district court determined that the c ir c u m s ta n c e s did not rise to this level. Even if this were erroneous, in light of th e overwhelming evidence of Dunston's guilt, any error is harmless. See United S ta t e s v. Bentley, 875 F.2d 1114, 1117 (5th Cir. 1989). D u n s t o n also argues that the district court erred by allowing the in t r o d u c t io n of evidence, i.e., testimony and exhibits, of his 1999 Florida c o n v ic t io n for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. We review a d e c is io n to admit Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence under a heightened a b u s e of discretion standard, subject to a harmless error inquiry if abuse is fo u n d . United States v. McCall, 553 F.3d 821, 827 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 1 2 9 S. Ct. 2018 (2009). Our review of the record shows that the evidence met b o t h steps of the test outlined in United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 ( 5 t h Cir. 1978) (en banc), and the district court did not err in admitting it. A l t h o u g h Dunston argues that the district court reversibly erred by r e fu s in g to give his requested jury instruction regarding the voluntariness of the s ta te m e n ts he made to the DEA agent, the evidence at trial does not reveal that th e DEA agents used any coercion to elicit Dunston's statements or that his will w a s overborne by the circumstances. See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 4 2 8 , 434 (2000). Dunston has not shown that there was a sufficient evidentiary 2

Case: 09-10115

Document: 00511130892 Page: 3 No. 09-10115

Date Filed: 06/03/2010

b a s is for his requested voluntariness instruction or that the lack of the v o lu n t a r in e s s instruction seriously impaired his ability to present his defense. S e e United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 255 (5th Cir. 2010). Thus, he has not s h o w n that the district court erred in refusing to give that instruction. A F F IR M E D .

3