Court Opinion

ID: 9905478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:01:44.130292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:36.738830
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12339    Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 11/29/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12339
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       BRYAN ALEXANDER ARCHILA MATEO,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00115-TWT-LTW-2
                          ____________________

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 22-12339     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 11/29/2023    Page: 2 of 2

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12339

       PER CURIAM:
              On March 30, 2022, Defendant-Appellant Bryan Alexander
       Archila Mateo was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to possess
       with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine,
       in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846, and of possession
       with intent to distribute the same, in violation of §§ 841 and 846,
       and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He was sentenced to serve a term of 210 months.
             Mateo timely filed a notice of appeal and brought forth the
       following issues:
             I.     Whether the district court erred in denying Mateo’s
                    motion to suppress evidence from his cell phone.
             II.    Whether the district court erred in denying Mateo’s
                    motions for a mistrial.
             III.   Whether the district court erred in admitting portions
                    of testimony from two federal agents.
             IV.    Whether the district court erred in calculating
                    Mateo’s sentence.
              After review and consideration of the briefs and the record,
       and having the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible er-
       ror, and affirm on all counts.
             AFFIRMED.