Court Opinion

ID: 9408792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 18:00:44.336101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:46.930683
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30409        Document: 00516819429             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023

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

                                     ____________                                 FILED
                                                                              July 13, 2023
                                      No. 22-30409                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                              Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Morgan Lyons,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:19-CR-283-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Morgan Lyons was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to
   distribute five hundred grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a
   detectable amount of cocaine and two counts of possession of a firearm
   following conviction of a felony offense. He challenges the district court’s
   denial of his initial and amended motions to suppress evidence obtained

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30409        Document: 00516819429        Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                    No. 22-30409

   during the search of a mobile home and the sufficiency of the evidence
   supporting his convictions. We do not consider his inadequately briefed
   challenge to the district court’s denial of his request for a hearing under
   Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). See United States v. Scroggins, 599
   F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254
   (5th Cir. 2010).
          When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, “we
   review questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error.” United
   States v. Gentry, 941 F.3d 767, 779 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). In addition to deferring to the district court’s factual
   findings, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
   prevailing party, in this case, the Government. See United States v. Pack, 612
   F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds on denial of reh’g, 622 F.3d
   383 (5th Cir. 2010). The district court’s decision may be upheld “on any
   basis established by the record.” Pack, 612 F.3d at 347. The relevant record
   on appeal includes “evidence admitted at [a] suppression hearing and at
   trial.” United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562, 568 (5th Cir. 2008).
          We engage in a two-step inquiry when reviewing the denial of a
   defendant’s motion to suppress involving a search warrant. United States v.
   Allen, 625 F.3d 830, 835 (5th Cir. 2010). In most cases, we initially decide
   whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies; if the good
   faith exception applies, we can affirm the denial of the motion to suppress
   without further inquiry. Id. The initial burden is on the defendant to show
   that the good faith exception does not apply. United States v. Jarman, 847
   F.3d 259, 264 (5th Cir. 2017); see also United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706,
   710 (5th Cir. 2002). If the good faith exception is inapplicable, we proceed
   to the second step and review whether the issuing judge had a substantial
   basis for determining that probable cause existed for the search. Cavazos, 288
   F.3d at 709.

                                              2
Case: 22-30409      Document: 00516819429           Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                     No. 22-30409

          The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that
   “evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently
   invalidated search warrant” typically should not be excluded. United States
   v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). The standard is objective, not subjective.
   See id. “Issuance of a warrant by a magistrate normally suffices to establish
   good faith on the part of law enforcement officers who conduct a search
   pursuant to the warrant.” United States v. Shugart, 117 F.3d 838, 843-44 (5th
   Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Lyons’s motions to suppress challenged the search of the mobile
   home pursuant to an anticipatory search warrant. See United States v. Grubbs,
   547 U.S. 90, 94 (2006). An anticipatory warrant may issue upon a showing
   that (1) “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will
   be found in a particular place,” and (2) “there is probable cause to believe
   the triggering condition will occur.” Id. at 96-97. “The supporting affidavit
   must provide the magistrate with sufficient information to evaluate both
   aspects of the probable-cause determination.” Id. at 97.
          Notwithstanding Lyons’s arguments to the contrary, based on the
   information in the search warrant affidavit, an objectively reasonable officer
   would have likely concluded that the marijuana would be delivered to the
   mobile home as the result of a prearranged controlled delivery and
   surveillance would confirm that the marijuana would be found there prior to
   execution of the warrant. See Grubbs, 547 U.S. at 96-97. Because the
   executing officers did not execute the warrant until they confirmed that
   Lyons had not removed the marijuana from the mobile home, an objectively
   reasonable officer could also conclude that the triggering condition had been
   satisfied prior to the search. See id. In light of the foregoing, and because
   Lyons failed to establish that the affiant officer intentionally or recklessly
   misled the issuing judge, see United States v. Martin, 615 F.2d 318, 329 (5th
   Cir. 1980), the district court did not err in concluding that Lyons failed to

                                              3
Case: 22-30409      Document: 00516819429          Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                    No. 22-30409

   establish that the good faith exception did not apply, see Leon, 468 U.S. at
   922.
          To preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant
   must move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government’s
   evidence and the close of all evidence if the defendant presents evidence. See
   United States v. Suarez, 879 F.3d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 2018). “We review
   claims preserved through a [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 29 motion
   de novo, but with substantial deference to the jury verdict.” Id. (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). Under this standard, we must
   determine whether, viewing the evidence and the inferences that may be
   drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of
   fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proved
   beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
          Lyons asks us to apply the Jackson standard to his insufficiency claims
   even though he failed to preserve them. “[O]ne panel of our court may not
   overturn another panel’s decision, absent an intervening change in the law,
   such as by a statutory amendment, or the Supreme Court, or our en banc
   court.”   United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014).
   Accordingly, we review his claims for plain error. See United States v. Cabello,
   33 F.4th 281, 285 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. Oti, 872 F.3d 678, 686 (5th
   Cir. 2017).
          To successfully challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on plain
   error review, a defendant must show that “the record is devoid of evidence
   pointing to guilt or that the evidence is so tenuous that a conviction is
   shocking.” Cabello, 33 F.4th at 288 (internal quotation marks, citation, and
   brackets omitted).     Stated differently, relief is appropriate under this
   standard only if the Government’s evidence is “obviously insufficient and the
   defendant shows a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Suarez, 879 F.3d at 631

                                              4
Case: 22-30409       Document: 00516819429          Page: 5     Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                     No. 22-30409

   (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v.
   Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 328-31 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). As with preserved
   challenges, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict
   and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the verdict.
   Suarez, 879 F.3d at 631.
            Possession with intent to distribute has three elements: (1) knowingly
   (2) possessing a controlled substance (3) with intent to distribute. United
   States v. Williamson, 533 F.3d 269, 277 (5th Cir. 2008). Possession can
   be actual or constructive and sole or joint. See United States v. Meza, 701
   F.3d 411, 419 (5th Cir. 2012). Constructive possession may be demonstrated
   by showing the defendant’s dominion over the place where the contraband is
   located. See id. “Proof of intent to distribute may be inferred from the
   presence of distribution paraphernalia, large quantities of cash, or the value
   and quality of the substance.” United States v. Munoz, 957 F.2d 171, 174 (5th
   Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Anguiano, 27 F.4th 1070, 1073 (5th Cir.
   2022).
            Here, the mobile home contained evidence that Lyons utilized it for
   storage and likely resided there on a regular basis, including a traffic ticket
   that had been recently issued to Lyons, a bill addressed to Lyons for cable
   television and internet service at the mobile home, tax documents sent to
   Lyons at the mobile home, and identification and credit/debit cards in
   Lyons’s name. In addition, the user’s manual for the safe that contained
   large quantities of cocaine and $30,200 in cash was found among Lyons’s
   papers. Such evidence supports an inference of constructive possession.
   United States v. Onick, 889 F.2d 1425, 1430 (5th Cir. 1989). Further, the
   quantity of cocaine, amount of bundled cash, two firearms, and presence of
   various paraphernalia used to package and traffic drugs, including scales and
   a drug ledger were consistent with trafficking. See Anguiano, 27 F.4th at 1073;
   United States v. Sharp, 6 F.4th 573, 579 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.

                                               5
Case: 22-30409        Document: 00516819429         Page: 6   Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                     No. 22-30409

   1124 (2022). Thus, the jury’s verdict is supported by some evidence of
   Lyons’s knowing possession of the cocaine found in the mobile home and the
   intent to distribute it, and the jury’s guilty verdict does not amount to a
   manifest miscarriage of justice. See Cabello, 33 F.4th at 288; Suarez, 879 F.3d
   at 631.
             Although Lyons argues that the record contained no evidence that he
   knowingly possessed the firearms found in the mobile home, the evidence
   also was sufficient to support Lyons’s firearms convictions on plain error
   review. See Cabello, 33 F.4th at 288; Meza, 701 F.3d at 419-20. Significantly,
   the firearms were found in the chest of drawers and under the bed of an
   occupied bedroom; a recent traffic ticket issued to Lyons and a bill for cable
   and internet services at the mobile home addressed to Lyons were found on
   top of the chest of drawers; and the rifle was found under the bed next to the
   backpack containing marijuana that the confidential informant sold to Lyons
   during the controlled delivery. Finally, the jury heard an audio recording of
   a man identified as Lyons tell the person whom he had called that he was
   “locked and loaded every night and had unlimited bullets.” Accordingly,
   “there was some evidence supporting at least a plausible inference that
   [Lyons] had knowledge of and access to” the firearms. Meza, 701 F.3d at
   420.
             The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                              6