Opinion ID: 3063469
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000). We review the district court’s application of the law to the facts de novo, but 2 accept the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Additionally, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Id. In cases where a magistrate judge has made a credibility determination based on an assessment of witnesses’ in-court testimony, we “defer to the magistrate judge’s determinations unless his understanding of the facts appears to be unbelievable.” United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review de novo the scope of the Confrontation Clause. United States v. Cantellano, 430 F.3d 1142, 1144 (11th Cir. 2005). However, we review a district court’s evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. Conroy v. Abraham Chevrolet-Tampa, Inc., 375 F.3d 1228, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004).