Court Opinion

ID: 9955099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 18:00:45.627708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.104031
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50225           Document: 73-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                  March 27, 2024
                                   No. 23-50225
                                 Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________                                          Clerk

United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Leonardo Terrazas,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 5:19-CR-609-1
                  ______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Leonardo Terrazas pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm but preserved his right to challenge the denial of a suppression
motion. He was sentenced to 92 months of imprisonment to be followed by
a three-year term of supervised release, and he timely appealed.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50225       Document: 73-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                 No. 23-50225

       We may affirm the denial of a suppression motion on any ground
supported by the record, see United States v. Boche-Perez, 755 F.3d 327, 333
(5th Cir. 2014), and we should uphold the district court’s ruling if any
reasonable view of the evidence supports it, see United States v. Massi, 761
F.3d 512, 520 (5th Cir. 2014).
       In this case, officers entered Terrazas’s home with a state felony arrest
warrant, but they did not knock and announce their presence before doing so.
The failure to knock and announce formed the basis for the suppression
motion. The district court credited suppression-hearing testimony that an
officer saw a pistol grip in plain view while standing in Terrazas’s bedroom
after Terrazas’s arrest. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the
Government as the prevailing party, this factual determination that the pistol
was in plain view was not clearly erroneous. See Boche-Perez, 755 F.3d at 333.
       Armed with an arrest warrant, officers were entitled to enter
Terrazas’s home and search anywhere in the home that Terrazas might be
found. See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 332-33 (1990). The fact that the
means of the entry may have been illegal does not necessarily require the
exclusion of evidence. See United States v. Hernandez, 670 F.3d 616, 620 (5th
Cir. 2012). Instead, courts considering whether to apply the exclusionary
rule should consider “whether, granting establishment of the primary
illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at
by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently
distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” Hernandez, 670 F.3d at
620 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
       Police made entry into Terrazas’s bedroom through an exterior door
at the rear of Terrazas’s house. Terrazas was arrested almost immediately
when officers entered his home, but there were other, unsecured people in
his house. The officer who set up the arrest operation knew that Terrazas

                                       2
Case: 23-50225        Document: 73-1        Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                  No. 23-50225

had a violent criminal history, that he had a gang affiliation, and that he was
suspected of possessing firearms and body armor. Given these facts, the
district court did not clearly err in finding that the officer was justified in
conducting a protective sweep of, at a bare minimum, Terrazas’s bedroom.
See United States v. Watson, 273 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 2001). That same
protective sweep would have been justified even if police had knocked and
Terrazas had surrendered outside the exterior door of his bedroom. Id. We
therefore uphold the denial of Terrazas’s suppression motion. See Massi, 761
F.3d at 520.
       For the first time on appeal, Terrazas argues that 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment in
light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Bruen argument is unpreserved and is
therefore reviewed only for plain error. To demonstrate plain error, Terrazas
must show that (1) there is an error, (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather
than subject to reasonable dispute, and (3) the error affected his substantial
rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this
showing, we will exercise our discretion to correct the error only if it
“seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
We recently rejected a plain-error Bruen challenge to § 922(g)(1). See United
States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2023), petition for cert. filed (U.S.
Feb. 13, 2024) (No. 23-6769). Terrazas’s challenge is likewise unavailing.
See id. at 572-74.
       AFFIRMED.

                                        3