Court Opinion

ID: 9899157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 01:00:36.274245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:28.582906
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50809         Document: 00516968956             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                                                                         FILED
                                       No. 22-50809                              November 15, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Mark Anthony Rodriguez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:18-CR-572-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Following the denial of his motion to suppress, Mark Anthony
   Rodriguez reserved his right to challenge that denial and proceeded to a
   bench trial on stipulated facts.           He was found guilty of one count of
   distribution of child pornography, one count of receipt of child pornography,
   and three counts of possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to a

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50809      Document: 00516968956          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                    No. 22-50809

   total of 240 months of imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release, and
   he was ordered to pay $70,000 in restitution.
          Some of the evidence against Rodriguez was discovered when agents
   executed a search warrant at his home. He maintained in the district court
   and reiterates on appeal that (1) the agent whose affidavit formed the basis
   for the search warrant misled the issuing magistrate judge by omitting
   material information from the affidavit, (2) the affidavit was bare bones and
   so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no official could reasonably have
   relied on it, and (3) the affidavit contained insufficient facts to establish a
   nexus between the place to be searched and the items sought. The district
   court determined that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule
   applied. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district
   court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that a reasonable view
   of the evidence supports the conclusion that the good-faith exception does
   apply here. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919, 922 & n.23 (1984);
   United States v. Contreras, 905 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v.
   Ortega, 854 F.3d 818, 827 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d
   588, 594 (5th Cir. 2014).
          Other evidence against Rodriguez was obtained as a result of an
   interview that Rodriguez had with two agents while the other agents were
   executing the warrant by searching his home. Rodriguez contends that
   agents exploited their limited ability to detain the occupants of a premises
   that is being searched to interview Rodriguez and gain incriminating
   evidence. The district court found that no such exploitation had taken place,
   that Rodriguez was not in custody when he spoke to agents, and that
   Rodriguez’s statements were made freely and voluntarily. The transcript of
   the suppression motion supports the district court’s factual findings and its
   decision to deny the suppression motion. See Contreras, 905 F.3d at 857;
   Robinson, 741 F.3d at 594; United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562, 574 (5th Cir.

                                         2
Case: 22-50809      Document: 00516968956          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                    No. 22-50809

   2008); see also United States v. Harrell, 894 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 1990)
   (stating that a defendant’s statements are admissible if they are made outside
   of a custodial interrogation).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3