Case ID: f-appx_440/html/0859-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: VINSON, District Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Peter ROBERTS, a.k.a. Roberts, James, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-13881.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 20, 2011.
    
      Jill E. Steinberg, Stephanie Gabay-Smith, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard Brooks Holcomb, Stephanie Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges, and VINSON, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable C. Roger Vinson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the statement made by the Defendant was an unequivocal request for a lawyer and that he did not reinitiate any conversation with the agent. Under our prior panel rule, Burger King Corp. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 15 F.3d 166, 169 (11th Cir.1994), we find that Cannady v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 752 (11th Cir.1991), controls and requires that we reverse the ruling on the motion to suppress and remand the case for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

VINSON, District Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent based upon my conclusion that the Supreme Court in, Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994), has overruled Cannady.