Case ID: f-appx_65/html/0816-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BARRY, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, v. Antonio L. HORNE, Sr., Appellant.
    No. 02-2649.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 11, 2003.
    Decided April 24, 2003.
    
      Before: BARRY, ROSENN, Circuit Judges and POLLAK, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Louis H. Poliak, Senior District Judge, United States Court for the East-em District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION

BARRY, Circuit Judge.

Because we write primarily for the parties in this case, we will forego a recitation of its facts. Suffice it to say, appellant Antonio Horne argues that the District Court’s failure to suppress allegedly impermissibly obtained evidence against him warrants the vacation of his conviction for violating the so-called “felon in possession” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and appellate jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We have carefully reviewed all of appellant’s arguments pertaining to how and why the government wrongly obtained the evidence at issue and the ways in which the District Court erred when it failed to suppress that evidence. We find no error. The police had probable cause to arrest Horne based on suspicion of domestic assault and driving under the influence. They read his Miranda rights to him, he acknowledged that he understood them, and he then implicitly waived them. Additionally, he orally consented and consented in writing to a search of his car. The District Court did not err in finding that his consent was not coerced. Finally, his various due process claims are all without merit. We will, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence for the reasons substantially set forth in the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the District Court.