[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 10822 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:13

- cr - 20651

- KMM

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus EDUARDO BARNES, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( January 6, 2015 ) Before WILLIAM PRYOR , MARTIN and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-10822 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 1 of 72 Eduardo Ba rnes appeals his conviction and sentence of 120 months of imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm

. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

. Barnes challenges the denial of his motion to suppress; the admission of an inculpa tory statement during his sentencing proceeding; and the procedural reasonableness of his sentence . Barnes also challenges, for the first time, the constitutionality of section 922(g). We affirm. The district court did not err by denying Barnes’s motion to suppress the firearm

. Barnes lacked standing to challenge the search of the rental vehicle in which the firearm was found

. See Rakas v. Illinois , 439 U.S. 128, 134, 99 S. Ct. 421, 425 (1978); United States v. Lee , 586 F.3d 859, 864

– 65 (11th Cir. 2009). The driver of the vehicle, Ricky Taylor, told officers that a man named “Shrimp” loaned the vehicle to him, and neither Taylor nor Barnes were listed as approved drivers on the rental agreement

. As a passenger, Barnes had standing to challenge the traffic stop , but the evidence established that the stop was “ constitutional [because] it . . . [was] based upon probable cause to believe a traffic violation ha [d] occurred . . . .” United States v. Harris , 526 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2008). Sean Bergert , an officer for the City of Aventura, Florida, stopped the vehicle because Taylor was speeding and ma de a sharp turn that almost caused the vehicle to colli de with Bergert’s patrol car. See Fla. Stat. § 316.183(1). Barnes fled from the back seat before the rental vehicle came to a stop, and officers noticed a semi

Case: 14-10822 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 2 of 73 automatic handgun lying in the accessory pocket of the rear passenger door that Barnes had left ajar. Barnes lacked any expectation of privacy in the vehicle

. T he district court fulfille d its obligation to ma k e an independent and informed decision about the lawfulness of the traffic stop

. A magistrate judge held a hearing on Barnes’s motion to suppress and credited Bergert’s testimony about the reasons for the traffic stop. Barnes objecte d a nd was entitled to de novo review of the decision to rely on Bergert’s testimony , see Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3), but the district court was unable to obtain a transcript of the hearing. T he district court made a final determination about the validity of the traffic stop when it assess ed Bergert’s testimony during Barnes’s bench trial. See United States v. Raddatz , 447 U.S. 667, 680

– 81, 100 S. Ct. 2406, 2415 (1980)

. And t he district court was entitled
to credit Bergert’s undisputed explanation that he stop ped the driver of the rental vehicle for speeding in violation of Florida law . As stated by the district court, Bergert’s “testimony . . . [ was ] sufficient to support the denial of the motion” to
suppress. We ar e “satisfied that [the] district court

. . . exercised his non

- delegable authority by considering

. . . actual testimony, and not merely by reviewing the magistrate’s report and recommendations.” United States v. Elsoffer , 644 F.2d 357, 359 (5th Cir. 1981)

. The district court did not err by adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to use Barnes’s incriminating statement to determine an

Case: 14-10822 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 3 of 74 appropriate sentence. Although Barnes’s statement was not admissible a s substantive evidence of his guil t becaus e he was not advised of his rights to remain silent and to counsel, see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), he acknowledged that his “statements [could] be considered at sentencing . . . unless [they] were involuntary or unreliable.” T he district court reviewed de novo the agents’ testimony about Barnes’s interrogation, see Diaz v. United States , 930 F.2d 832, 836 (11th Cir. 1991) , and determin ed that Barnes’s statement was “the product of a free and deliberate choice

. ” S ee United States v. Bernal

- Benitez , 594 F.3d 1303, 131 8 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Moran v. Burbine , 475 U.S. 412, 421 , 106 S. Ct. 1135, 114 1 (1986) )

. The district court did not err in denying Barnes’s motion to exclude his inculpatory statement at sentencing. D etective Roderick Passmore and Officer Ricardo Martinez, of the Miami Dade Police Department, and Agent David Solis, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified, without dispute, that when
Passmore asked Barnes about his destination at the time of the traffic stop, he confessed that he was on the way to shoot someone

. Passmore and Solis testified that they treated Barnes as a cooperative witness in hopes of obtaining information about gang

- related homicides in the area and that , during the interview, which lasted no long e r than seven hours, Barnes remained cooperative, articulate, and alert. And Martinez testified that, before Barnes made the inculpatory statement, he

Case: 14-10822 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 4 of 75 was fed, relocated to a more comfortable conference room, and allowed to speak to a federal agent. See id. The agents testified consistently that Barnes was not physically or verbally coerced and, although Solis offered to inform prosecutors about Barnes’s cooperation, Solis testified that he did not promise Barnes a ny reward for cooperating. See United States v. Thompson , 422 F.3d 1285, 1295

– 96 (11th Cir. 2005)

. And Barnes made his inculpatory statement after refus ing to talk to Detective Jonathan Ruiz, which evidenc ed that Barnes knew he was not required to speak to law enforcement and that he could choose when and with to whom to speak. This record, which establishes that Barnes was well

- treated, the interview was relaxed, and Barnes was acting intelligently, supports the determination of the district court that Barnes’s statements were “freely and voluntarily given.” Barnes argues , for the first time on appeal, that his statements were inadmissible because he was not timely presented to a magistrate judge, see 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c), but this argument fails. To prevail on review for plain error,
Barnes must prove that an error occurred and that the error is plain, affects his substantial rights, and “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

o f judicial proceedings.” United States v. McNair , 605 F.3d 1152, 1222 (11th Cir. 2010). Section 3501 provides that a confession is admissible when made voluntarily and “within six hours immediately following arrest or other detention , ” and is admissible ev en if made after the expiration of the six

- hour deadline , s o long

Case: 14-10822 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 5 of 76 as t he delay in presenting him to a judicial officer is “ reasonable considering the means of transportation and the distance to be traveled to the nearest available such magistrate judge or other officer

. ” 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c). Because the record is not developed about exactly how much time elapsed between Barnes’s arrest, his confession, and his presentment or about the availability of a judicial officer, we
cannot say that any delay in his p resentment was unreasonable. The use of Barnes’s inculpatory statements to determine his base offense level d id not make his sentence procedurally un reasonable. The district court was allowed to use Barnes’s incriminating statement to enhance his sentence. The district court credited the agents’ testimony; their testimonies established that Barnes made the statements voluntarily; and Barnes was given advance notice of the evidentiary hearing and had the opportunity to rebut th e evidence about the interrogat ion

. See United States v. Baker , 432 F.3d 1189, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005)

. Although Passmore testified that Barnes used the word “kill” and Solis recalled
t h at Barnes used the word “shoot , ” the district court reasonably found that the
terms were “internally consistent.” In the light of B arnes’s statements and his possession of a firearm , the district court did not clearly err in finding that Barnes had armed himself as part of a plot to murder another person. Based on that finding , the district court correctl y assigned Barnes a base offense level of 33 based on the cross - reference s in the Sentencing Guidelines that addressed the

Case: 14-10822 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 6 of 77 possess ion of a firearm in connection with an attempted murder. See United States Sentencing Guidelines M anual §§ 2K2.1(c)(1), 2X1.1(c)(1), 2A2.1(a)(1) (Nov. 2013). Barnes argues that the district court enhanced his sentence based on fact s that were not alleged in his indictment or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, but the district court was allowed to enhance Barnes’s sentence because “ its findings [did] not increase [his] sentence beyond the statutory maximum authorized by [the] facts determined in [his] guilty pl ea ,” United States v. Dean , 487 F.3d 840, 854 (11th Cir. 2007)

. Barnes concedes that his argument, made for the first time, about the constitutionality of section 922(g) is foreclosed by precedent. We have held repeatedly that section 922(g) is constitutional , facially and as applied, as a lawful exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. See United States v.
Scott , 263 F.3d 1270, 1273 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Dupree , 258 F.3d 1258, 1259

– 60 (11th Cir. 2001). “Under [our] prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Vega

- Castillo , 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and cita tion omitted). The district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, when it convicted Barnes of violating section 922(g).
We AFFIRM Barnes’s conviction and sentence. Case: 14-10822 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 7 of 7