1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3791

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Plaintiff – Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Jay Scott Patterson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant – Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 23, 2008

Filed: October 1, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jay Scott Patterson was convicted by a jury of possession of an unregistered

firearm silencer, 21 U.S.C. § 5861(d), possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to

manufacture, id. § 841(c), and possession of methamphetamine with intent to

distribute, id. § 841(a)(1). He appeals, claiming that he did not voluntarily consent

to the search of his home, that the district court1

 should have granted his motion for
-2-

a continuance, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We

affirm.

Patterson contends that he did not voluntarily consent to the search and that the

court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We review the denial of a motion to

suppress de novo, but review the district court's underlying factual determinations for

clear error. United States v. Martinez, 358 F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir. 2004). To

determine whether consent is voluntary we consider “the totality of the circumstances,

including characteristics of the accused and details of the interrogation.” United States

v. Luna, 368 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2004). Law enforcement officers sought

permission to search Patterson’s home and interpreted from his gesture that he had

granted consent. In the home the officers saw evidence of methamphetamine

production in plain view. Patterson was arrested and a search warrant obtained, after

which the officers discovered more evidence of methamphetamine production, several

firearms, and a silencer. Patterson argues that his consent to enter was coerced

because a number of officers had come to his door, others had set up a perimeter

around his house, and he was unaware of his rights. These arguments differ from

those made to the district court, however, where Patterson argued that he withdrew his

consent after the officers were already in his house. We conclude the district court did

not clearly err in finding that Patterson voluntarily consented to the entry of the

officers. 

 Patterson argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a

continuance after his final witness, Donna Johnson, became unavailable due to illness.

We will not overturn a district court's denial of a continuance absent a clear abuse of

discretion. See United States v. Young, 943 F.2d 24, 25 (8th Cir. 1991). Here, the

district court had already granted one continuance for Johnson to testify, and it found

that her testimony would be cumulative and would not rehabilitate another defense

witness. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

continuance.
-3-

Finally, Patterson contends that the court erred in denying his motion for

judgment of acquittal. A judgment of acquittal is required if the evidence is

insufficient to sustain a conviction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(a). We review challenges to the

sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the government and accepting all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict.

United States v. Garcia, 521 F.3d 898, 901 (8th Cir. 2008). Patterson argues that

because the evidence showed that his ex girlfriend Laura Baston had access to the

residence, and could have introduced items into the home, the government had not

proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Patterson knowingly possessed the silencer and

drug related evidence. We conclude that the government introduced sufficient

evidence to support a jury determination that Patterson knew about the materials in

his house, and to sustain the guilty verdict on all three counts.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

_____________________________