NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 2293

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . FI R A S A L - SA L I B I , a/k/ a J os ei t o M ont al vo,

a/k/ a A zr a El i aho Fi r as A l - Sal i bi , A ppel l ant

____________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 2- 07- cr - 00687- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h A . G ree n aw ay , Jr.

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ay13, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , W E IS and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es. Fi l ed: J une 29, 2010

___________ OP I NI ON W E I S, C i r cui tJ udge.

Fi r as A l - Sal i bi w as char ged bya s uper cedi ng i ndi ctm entw i th one countof m aki ng a fa l s e s t at ementi n a pas s por tappl i cat i on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1542, thr ee count s of unl aw ful l yus i ng another ’ s m eans of i dent i fi cat i on i n contr avent i on of 182

U . S. C . § 1028A ( a) ( 1) , and tw o count s of us i ng a fr audul ent l ypr ocur ed pas s por ti n br eac h o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 5 4 2 . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied A l- S ali b i’ s m o ti o n to su p p ress, an d a jury s u b s e q u e n tly c o n v ic te d h im o f a ll c h a rg e s . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rtim p o s e d , in tera lia , a 54 mo n th t e rm o f

i mp r i s o n me n t . W e wi l l a f f i r m. A l-S a lib i co n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s uppr es s byi m pr oper l yappl y i ng the doctr i nes of ac tual author i ty , appar entauthor i ty , and cons entt o the fa ct s of hi s cas e.

A l- S a lib i w a s a rr e s te d p u rs u a n t to a n im m ig ra tio n w a rr a n t a n d in c a rc e ra te d . W h il e ins ide a d eten ti o n fa cil ity , A l- S ali b i ask ed h is bro ther to re tr ieve fro m A l- S ali b i’ s apartm enta s ui t cas e cont ai ni ng hi s fr audul enti dent i fi cat i on document s . T he br other c o m p lied w ith th e re q u e st, re tu rn e d to h is o w n re sid e n c e , an d o p e n e d th e su itca se w h e re in he found a n unl ocked t oi l etrybag. I ns i de the bag w er e mul t i pl e i t ems, i ncl udi ng an autom ob i l e t i t l e and i den t i fi cat i on do cum ents al l i n strangers’ nam es.

T he FB I w entt o the br other ’ s hom e. H e i nvi t ed the age nt s i ns i de and p e rm itte d th e m to v ie w a n d o b ta in th e n o c e n t c o n te n ts o f th e s u itc a s e a n d to ile tryb a g . T h e a g en ts al so rec o v ere d o n e o f A l- S ali b i’ s fra u d u lent d o cu m en ts from the b roth er’s w all et an d a lett er.

T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatA l - Sal i bi had a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of p riv a c yin h is s u itca se a n d to iletryb a g e v e n th o u g h th e yw e re in th e c u sto d yo f h is br otherand, thus , he had s t andi ng t o s eek s uppr es s i on. I n addi t i on, the C our tdet erm i ned,3

fora var i etyof r eas ons , thatA l - Sal i bi ’ s br otherhad both the ac tual author i ty , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. M at l ock, 415 U . S. 164, 171 ( 1974) ( a val i d “perm i s s i on t o s ear ch [c an be] o b tain e d f

ro m a th ird p a rtyw h o p o ss e ss e [ s] c o m m o n a u th o rityo v e r . . . th e . . . ef f e c ts so u g h t t o b e ins p ec ted” ), an d ap p are n t auth o ri tyto co n sen t t o a se arc h o f A l- S ali b i’ s s ui t cas e and t oi l etrybag. See G eor gi a v. R andol ph, 547 U . S. 103, 106 ( 2006) ( “[t ] he Four th A m endmentr ecogni zes a val i d w arr ant l es s . . . s ear ch . . . w hen pol i ce obt ai n the vol unt arycons entof [one ] w ho s har es , ori s r eas onabl ybel i eved t o s har e, author i tyover th e a re a in c o m m o n w ith [ a n o th e r] w h o la te r o b je c ts to th e u s e o f

e v id e n c e s o o b ta in e d ” ). B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatA l - Sal i bi ’ s cons entw as vol unt ar i l ygi ven, the m ot i on t o s uppr es s w as deni ed.

O urr evi ew r evea l s no err ori n the r es ul tr eac hed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t . T he “under l y i ng fac t s ” w er e noterr oneous l yfound. See U ni t ed St at es v. B r ow n, 595 F. 3d 498, 514 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( “[w ] e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a s uppr es s i on m ot i on for cl earerr oras t o the under l y i ng fac t s ”) . N orw er e the l egal concl us i ons “made i n l i ght ” of thos e fa ct s r ever s i bl yi ncorr ect . See i d.

A ccor di ngl y , the J udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.