[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10729

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20683-DLG-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

 versus

ROBINSON CALIXTE, 

 Defendant – Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 30, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-10729 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Robinson Calixte appeals his convictions for possession of 15 or more 

unauthorized access devices with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1029(a)(3), and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). 

Calixte raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues the district court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the initial search of one 

document on his flash drive because the search exceeded the scope of his consent. 

Second, he contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress 

evidence obtained from a subsequent forensic search because the 11-month delay 

between the seizure of his flash drive and the application for a warrant rendered 

the search unreasonable. After careful review, we affirm.1

We conclude the initial search of the flash drive did not exceed the scope of 

Calixte’s consent. The scope of a reasonable search is limited to “what a police 

officer could reasonably interpret the consent to encompass.” United States v. 

Strickland, 902 F.2d 937, 941 (11th Cir. 1990). Assuming arguendo the 

conversation between Calixte and Detective George Festa limited the scope of the 

search to looking for homework, Special Agent Katherine Litras’s search of the 

most recently opened file did not exceed the scope of this consent. To confirm the 

 

1

 When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we examine the district court’s 

factual findings for clear error and its application of the law to those facts de novo. United States 

v. Anderton, 136 F.3d 747, 749 (11th Cir. 1998). We construe the facts in the light most 

favorable to the party that prevailed in the district court. United States v. Santa, 236 F.3d 662, 

668 (11th Cir. 2000). We may affirm the denial of a motion to suppress on any ground 

supported by the record. United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2010).

Case: 14-10729 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

flash drive contained homework, Litras needed to open at least one file, and 

nothing in the record suggests the most recently opened file was an unreasonable 

place to begin. Furthermore, Calixte was physically present for the search and 

neither revoked his consent nor attempted to limit the search to specific files. 

Under the totality of the circumstances, Litras’s search of the file was reasonable. 

See United States v. Blake, 888 F.2d 795, 798 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[W]hether there 

were any limitations placed on the consent given and whether the search 

conformed to those limitations is to be determined by the totality of the 

circumstances.”).

We also conclude the 11-month delay in obtaining a warrant did not render 

unreasonable the Government’s subsequent search of Calixte’s flash drive. Calixte 

argues our decision in United States v. Mitchell, 565 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2009),

establishes the authorities’ delay between the seizure and search of the flash drive 

was unreasonable. In Mitchell, we held the government’s 21-day delay in 

obtaining a warrant was unreasonable. Id. at 1351-52. Mitchell, however, is 

inapposite. The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant in this case because 

Calixte gave Litras consent to search the flash drive. See United States v. Stabile, 

633 F.3d 219, 235 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Where a person consents to search and seizure, 

no possessory interest has been infringed because valid consent, by definition, 

requires voluntary tender of property.”).

Case: 14-10729 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

For the foregoing reasons, the district court did not err in denying the motion 

to suppress, and we affirm Calixte’s convictions.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-10729 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 4 of 4