Court Opinion

ID: 9370968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 01:00:54.495001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.728934
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60271         Document: 00516646070             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/14/2023

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

                                                                                 FILED
                                                                          February 14, 2023
                                       No. 22-60271                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jordan Reshard Thomas,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 5:20-CR-10-1

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Jordan Thomas was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon in
   violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after officers found a gun on him
   during a traffic stop. After unsuccessfully moving to suppress the evidence
   of the gun, Thomas pleaded guilty to the charge. The district court sentenced
   Thomas to a within-Guidelines sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment and

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60271      Document: 00516646070             Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/14/2023

                                       No. 22-60271

   three years’ supervised release. The sole issue on appeal is whether the
   district court erred in denying Thomas’s motion to suppress.
          Thomas contends that the district court erred in denying his
   suppression motion because the Government, in bad faith, failed to preserve
   purportedly relevant evidence that it knew it had a duty to maintain. Thomas
   argues that the Government’s actions violated both the doctrine of spoliation
   and his due process rights and thus warranted sanctions. He asks us to reverse
   the district court’s suppression ruling or, in the alternative, remand the
   motion for rehearing with instructions that the district court draw adverse
   inferences against the Government. Because we find no error, we AFFIRM.
                                   *        *         *
          In reviewing a motion-to-suppress ruling, we assess the district
   court’s factual findings, including its bad-faith finding, for clear error and
   questions of law de novo. United States v. Valadez, 267 F.3d 395, 397 (5th Cir.
   2001); United States v. McNealy, 625 F.3d 858, 868–69 (5th Cir. 2010). The
   decision whether to impose sanctions for spoliation is reviewed for abuse of
   discretion. See Guzman v. Jones, 804 F.3d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Thomas fails to show he is entitled to relief under the spoliation
   doctrine. “We permit an adverse inference against the spoliator or sanctions
   against the spoliator only upon a showing of bad faith or bad conduct.” Id. at
   713 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v.
   Glenn, 935 F.3d 313, 320 (5th Cir. 2019). Beyond his bare accusation, Thomas
   fails to show that the unavailability of any evidence was because of intentional
   misconduct instead of oversight, error, ineptitude, or carelessness, see Vick v.
   Tex. Emp. Comm’n, 514 F.2d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1975), or that any items were
   deliberately lost, altered, or destroyed for the purpose of hiding adverse
   evidence or depriving him of its use. See Guzman, 804 F.3d at 713; United
   States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 156 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court

                                            2
Case: 22-60271       Document: 00516646070         Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/14/2023

                                    No. 22-60271

   considered testimony on why the evidence was unavailable and found
   credible the Government’s explanation that the evidence was due to either
   administerial error or a misunderstanding. We defer to the district court’s
   credibility finding. See United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir.
   2005).
            Thomas’s claim that his due process rights were violated is likewise
   meritless. As with his spoliation claim, Thomas must establish that the
   Government acted in bad faith in failing to preserve the evidence or to make
   it available. See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57–58 (1988); California
   v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488–89 (1984). Again, Thomas fails to satisfy this
   bad-faith requirement. He has not alleged or shown that the Government
   acted with “official animus” towards him or consciously sought to suppress
   exculpatory evidence. Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 488. No bad faith is otherwise
   apparent from the record. The Government’s actions at worst may be
   described as negligent, which is insufficient to establish a due process
   violation. See Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 58; Glenn, 935 F.3d at 320.
            AFFIRMED.

                                          3