Court Opinion

ID: 9880821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 19:00:42.539861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:51.232837
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10887    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10887
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ANTONY JUNIOR HARRIS,
       a.k.a. Anthony Harris,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cr-80088-RS-1
USCA11 Case: 22-10887      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10887

                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Antony Harris appeals his convictions for conspiracy to pos-
       sess and for attempt to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl
       and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
       846. Harris challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
       suppress evidence obtained following the search and seizure of a
       package at a FedEx distribution facility. The district court con-
       cluded that Harris lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the
       package and, thus, lacked standing to raise a Fourth Amendment
       challenge. No reversible error has been shown; we aﬃrm.
              We review the denial of a motion to suppress under a mixed
       standard of review, examining the district court’s factual determi-
       nations for clear error and reviewing the district court’s application
       of law to those facts de novo. See United States v. Lindsey, 482 F.3d
       1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 2007). We construe all facts in the light most
       favorable to the prevailing party -- here, the government. See id.
               The Supreme Court has recognized that mailed packages
       constitute “eﬀects” that are subject to Fourth Amendment protec-
       tion. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 114 (1984). A person
       has Fourth Amendment standing to challenge a search when he has
       a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. See United
       States v. Cohen, 38 F.4th 1364, 1368 (11th Cir. 2022). To demonstrate
       a legitimate expectation of privacy, a defendant must show (1) that
USCA11 Case: 22-10887      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-10887               Opinion of the Court                          3

       he “manifest[ed] a subjective expectation of privacy in the object
       of the challenged search,” and (2) that “society [is] willing to recog-
       nize that expectation as legitimate.” See United States v. McKennon,
       814 F.2d 1539, 1542-43 (11th Cir. 1987). In determining whether a
       defendant has made the requisite showing, courts consider the to-
       tality of the circumstances, including “preliminary statements of
       ownership asserted . . . at the motion to suppress hearing.” See
       United States v. Hawkins, 681 F.2d 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 1982).
              Generally speaking, a person who is neither the sender nor
       the addressee of a package can demonstrate no legitimate expecta-
       tion of privacy in the contents of the package. See United States v.
       Smith, 39 F.3d 1143, 1145 (11th Cir. 1994). Under certain circum-
       stances, we have recognized that a person may assert a reasonable
       expectation of privacy in a package addressed to them under an
       alternate name. See United States v. Garcia-Bercovich, 582 F.3d 1234,
       1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the defendant -- Angel Gar-
       cia-Bercovich -- had a legitimate expectation of privacy in a package
       addressed to “Angel at Natural Heat Systems”); United States v. Rich-
       ards, 638 F.2d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1981) (concluding that a package
       addressed to a business entity established by the defendant was “in
       eﬀect” addressed to the defendant).
              Here, Harris sought to suppress evidence discovered follow-
       ing the search of a FedEx package containing fentanyl and meth-
       amphetamine. The shipping label listed the package’s sender as a
       Mailbox Plus location in California. The package was addressed to
       “C. Bucklin” at an apartment in Lantana, Florida. The Lantana
USCA11 Case: 22-10887     Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023    Page: 4 of 6

       4                     Opinion of the Court                 22-10887

       apartment was the personal residence of Alexis Bucklin: a woman
       Harris was then dating.
              At the suppression hearing, Harris testiﬁed that he arranged
       for his California drug supplier to mail the package to a ﬁctitious
       person (“C. Bucklin”) at the Lantana address. The package was de-
       livered to a common area in front of the Lantana apartment build-
       ing. Harris then instructed Alexis Bucklin to move the package
       from the common area to her apartment where she was expected
       to hand the unopened package over to Harris. Harris later took the
       package from the Lantana apartment to his residence in Boynton
       Beach, Florida.
             Oﬃcers observed Harris enter the Boynton Beach address
       and arrested Harris shortly thereafter. Upon searching the
       Boynton Beach address, oﬃcers found the package (which already
       had been opened) and its contents, a drug ledger, and other drug
       paraphernalia. Oﬃcers also found Harris’s clothing, shoes, jewelry,
       and other personal belongings.
              At the suppression hearing, Harris testiﬁed that he had been
       expecting a package of marijuana. While the package was in
       transit, however, Harris said his drug supplier notiﬁed him that the
       package had been sent in error and contained the wrong contents.
       As a result, Harris testiﬁed that he intended to return the package
       to the sender.
             Under the circumstances involved in this case, the district
       court committed no error in concluding that Harris failed to
       demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the package.
USCA11 Case: 22-10887         Document: 31-1          Date Filed: 09/28/2023          Page: 5 of 6

       22-10887                   Opinion of the Court                                  5

       Harris was neither the sender nor the listed addressee on the pack-
       age. And Harris raises no challenge on appeal to the district court’s
       determination that Harris failed to establish a reasonable expecta-
       tion of privacy in the Lantana apartment listed on the package as
       the delivery address.
              The district court also determined reasonably that Harris
       failed to establish “a strong nexus or alter ego relationship” be-
       tween himself and the ﬁctitious name “C. Bucklin.” Harris pre-
       sented no evidence showing that he had fake identiﬁcation using
       the name “C. Bucklin” or that he had set up a corporation, bank
       account, utility, or bill using that name. On appeal, Harris contends
       that he used the ﬁctitious name “C. Bucklin” on at least three drug-
       ﬁlled packages. But Harris also testiﬁed inconsistently at the sup-
       pression hearing that the package was addressed mistakenly to “C.
       Bucklin” after his drug supplier misheard Harris’s instruction to ad-
       dress the package to “Fredrick Bucklin.” The evidence -- viewed in
       the government’s favor -- supports the district court’s determina-
       tion that Harris failed to demonstrate a connection to the ﬁctitious
       name “C. Bucklin” suﬃcient to establish Fourth Amendment
       standing.
             The district court committed no error in concluding that
       Harris lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the package. *

       * We also agree with the district court’s alternative ruling that -- even if Harris

       could show a legitimate expectation of privacy -- he demonstrated no Fourth
       Amendment violation. The record evidence supports the district court’s
USCA11 Case: 22-10887      Document: 31-1       Date Filed: 09/28/2023     Page: 6 of 6

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-10887

       We aﬃrm the district court’s denial of Harris’s motion to suppress
       evidence.
              AFFIRMED.

              .

       determination that the package was opened by a FedEx employee: a private
       person who was not acting as an instrument or agent of the government.