Opinion ID: 2971782
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: Hawkins argues that the district court erred in ruling his jury request untimely under Rule 32.2(b)(4) and in finding that Mrs. Hawkins had at least apparent authority to consent to the garage search. Findings of fact in a suppression hearing are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Avery, 137 F.3d 343, 348 (6th Cir. 1997). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Id. Hawkins also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Sufficiency of the evidence claims hinge upon whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 4 beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original). Lastly, Hawkins argues that the prosecution engaged in several instances of misconduct during closing arguments, thereby impacting his constitutional right to a fair trial. “Whether the government’s closing argument constitutes prosecutorial misconduct presents a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.” United States v. Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d 377, 403-04 (6th Cir. 2001).