Opinion ID: 3012029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Richard R. Bradley

Text: Bradley first contends that the District Court erred in denying his motion for a pretrial evidentiary hearing and in denying his motion for suppression of statements and physical evidence obtained as a result of Bradley’s arrest. We review the District Court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 122 S Ct. 76 (2001); United States v. Glass, 128 F.3d 1398, 1408 (10th Cir. 1997). We review the District Court’s denial of the motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying factual findings and exercise plenary review of the District Court’s application of the law to the facts. United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 336 (3d Cir. 2002). The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bradley an evidentiary hearing. Bradley was not entitled to a hearing unless his moving papers demonstrated a colorable claim for relief. United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1067 (3d Cir. 1996); Brink, 39 F.3d at 424. Bradley’s motion simply contained unsupported claims by his lawyer that Bradley’s arrest had been made without probable cause, and a statement by Bradley that he had committed no crime, the police had no legitimate reason to think that [he] had committed a crime and they had no valid reason to arrest [him]. (A40) [M]ere bald-faced allegations of misconduct such as these do not merit evidentiary hearings. Voigt, 89 F.3d at 1067. We also find that Bradley’s arrest was supported by probable cause, and that therefore all evidence arising out of his arrest was properly admitted. As established at trial, at the time of Bradley’s arrest, the Customs Agents knew that Chambers had imported over 500 grams of cocaine in her shoes and that she was meeting two men at the airport, whose descriptions matched Kerr and Bradley; they had observed Bradley pacing in and out of the airport and conversing with Kerr; they then saw Bradley approach Chambers, lead her out to his car, speak with Kerr, and begin to enter his car with Chambers. These facts are enough to warrant a prudent man in believing that [Bradley] had committed or was committing an offense. United States v. Burton, 288 F.3d 91, 98 (3d Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bradley an evidentiary hearing, and that the evidence gathered pursuant to his arrest was properly admitted. B. Limitation of Cross-Examination of Shaquana Pressley Bradley next appeals the District Court’s limitation of his cross-examination of Shaquana Pressley. We review the District Court’s decision to limit cross-examination for abuse of discretion, United States v. Ellis, 156 F.3d 493, 498 (3d Cir. 1998), reversing only if the limitation affected Bradley’s substantial rights. United States v. Conley, 92 F.3d 157, 169 (3d Cir. 1996). We find no abuse. In his cross-examination, Bradley was given the opportunity to fully explore the details surrounding Pressley’s conditional discharge for the offense of filing a false report. He obtained the full impeachment value of her prior criminal conduct and was only limited when he ventured into areas irrelevant to her credibility. In light of the foregoing, we will affirm Bradley’s conviction.