United States v. Marcus Allen


CORRECTED OPINION FILED - THE COURT: DIANA E. MURPHY, PASCO M. BOWMAN and DUANE BENTON Original Opinion filed on: 07/12/2016 Correction to opinion: Citation corrected page 3, paragraph 1, line 6. (UNPUBLISHED) [4424983] [15-2410]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2410 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Marcus Allen lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: July 7, 2016 Filed: July 12, 2016 (Corrected July 12, 2016) [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Marcus Allen guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e); possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The Appellate Case: 15-2410 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424983 District Court1 sentenced Allen to a total of 360 months in prison and 6 years of supervised release. In this appeal, Allen challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence, the denial of a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and the exclusion of the search-warrant application from evidence at trial. We find no error in the District Court’s denial of Allen’s motion to suppress. The law-enforcement official’s warrant affidavit consisted of detailed and corroborated information from a confidential source. The sworn affidavit provided a substantial basis for finding probable cause—“a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime” would be found at the residential address. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). And contrary to Allen’s arguments, the Magistrate Judge’s failure to sign the jurat on the warrant application did not render the warrant defective—much less so defective that no police officer could reasonably have presumed the warrant was valid—given that the attesting law-enforcement officer was sworn and signed both the application and the affidavit in the presence of the Magistrate Judge, who also signed the attached supporting affidavit. See United States v. Smith, 63 F.3d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1063 (1996). In addition, a date error in the warrant affidavit was an inconsequential typographical error, and the file-stamp date of the warrant (a day after its actual execution) did not compromise the probable-cause finding. See United States v. Solomon, 432 F.3d 824, 829 (8th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Waker, 534 F.3d 168, 171 (2nd Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (explaining that the dating errors in an officer’s affidavit and warrant “were harmless because each document in which they occurred contained accurate information from which one could easily establish the intended dates”). 1 The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Appellate Case: 15-2410 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424983 Further, Allen failed to make a substantial showing sufficient to justify a Franks hearing, given the absence of any evidence of deliberate falsehoods or a reckless disregard for the truth that would invalidate the search warrant. See United States v. Lucca, 377 F.3d 927, 931 (8th Cir. 2004). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s challenged evidentiary ruling. See United States v. Espinoza, 684 F.3d 766, 778 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 589 (2012). We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny Allen’s pending motions. ______________________________ -3- Appellate Case: 15-2410 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424983

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?