Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David STEIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-23
Citations: 283 F. App'x 516
Docket Number: No. 07-50201
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David STEIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 516–517

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David STEIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50201.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 2, 2008.
Filed June 23, 2008.
Michael J. Raphael, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donald Etra, Esq., Law Offices of Donald Etra, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
David Stein, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The affidavit of FBI agent Adrienne N. Mitchell supported the magistrate judge's finding of probable cause. See United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 712 (9th Cir.2004).
2. Because defendant admitted that his computer contained contraband, the government could not have returned it to him when the original warrant expired. See United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 827 F.2d 424, 433 (9th Cir.1987). And before searching the computer, the government obtained an extension of the 60-day period.
3. Defendant was not in constructive custody during the search of his apartment, as he was repeatedly told he was free to leave. See United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2002). And a suspect's request for a lawyer has legal effect only if the suspect is in custody. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 477, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 50 months' imprisonment, 7 months below the bottom of the Guidelines range for his offense level. See Gall v. United States, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.