Opinion ID: 4554836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress under a mixed standard of review, reviewing the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and 10 Case: 17-15310 Date Filed: 08/12/2020 Page: 11 of 24 its application of the law to those facts de novo. United States v. Jones, 377 F.3d 1313, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004). When considering a motion to suppress on appeal, we construe all facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000). A district court’s conclusion on the voluntariness of a confession is a question of law we review de novo. United States v. Barbour, 70 F.3d 580, 584 (11th Cir. 1995). This Court reviews a district court’s admission of rebuttal evidence for abuse of discretion, acknowledging the trial court’s “broad discretion” in the matter. United States v. Hawkins, 905 F.2d 1489, 1493, 1496 (11th Cir. 1990). A court may admit evidence for rebuttal purposes even if the evidence was previously inadmissible. United States v. West, 898 F.2d 1493, 1500 (11th Cir, 1990). We review the district court’s findings of fact related to the imposition of a sentencing enhancement for sophisticated means for clear error. United States v. Clarke, 562 F.3d 1158, 1165 (11th Cir. 2009). “[R]eview for clear error is deferential,” United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007), and “we will not disturb a district court’s findings ‘unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Clarke, 562 F.3d at 1165 (quoting United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1177 (11th Cir. 2005)).