Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yoel Emilio BAEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-24
Citations: 653 F. App'x 895
Docket Number: No. 14-14486
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yoel Emilio BAEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 895–895

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yoel Emilio BAEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-14486
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Date Filed: 05/24/2016
Peter J. Sholl, Natalie Hirt Adams, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Donald L. Hansen, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Arturo Virgilio Hernandez, Law Office of Arturo V. Hernandez, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN, District Judge.
Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Yoel Baez-Hernandez appeals his convictions for: (1) conspiracy to bring aliens to the United States at a place other than as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)©, (a)(l)(A)(v)(I), and (a)(1)(B)©; and (2) bringing aliens to the United States for the purpose of commercial advantage and financial gain knowing they had not received prior authorization to enter, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii).
After review of the record and briefs and with the benefit of oral' argument, we first grant defendant Baez-Hernandez's motion to supplement the record on appeal in order to make an infonhed decision as to the late discovery issue defendant Baez-Hernandez raises on appeal. Having granted the motion, we conclude that the district court: (1) did not err in denying his motion to suppress cell-cite-location data; (2) did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to exclude 1-213 forms; and (3) did not err in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal.
However, wé conclude that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance given the volume of discovery provided by the government so .close to the trial date; The district court clearly should have granted a short continuance. Therefore we grant the defendant's motion for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.