Court Opinion

ID: 9951894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 15:01:03.281789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:21.828869
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12996    Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 03/19/2024   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12996
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ABY RAUL RIVERA TORRES,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00397-MSS-JSS-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12996      Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 03/19/2024   Page: 2 of 9

       2                      Opinion of the Court                   22-12996

       Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Aby Torres appeals his convictions and 110-year sentence
       for production, distribution, and possession of child pornography.
       Below, he moved to suppress evidence gathered from his cell
       phone, arguing that law enforcement had tasked his girlfriend’s
       child to search his boat for the phone without a warrant, in
       violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court did not
       abuse its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing
       when the facts alleged by Torres’s motion did not entitle him to
       relief, and it did not clearly err by finding that the child was not
       acting as an agent of the government when searching his boat.
              Separately, Torres argues that the district court erred by
       imposing two sentence enhancements: for engaging in a pattern of
       activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor under
       U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2G2.2(b)(5), and for engaging in a
       pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct under
       § 4B1.5(b)(1). Neither enhancement constitutes reversible error.
       Accordingly, we affirm both Torres’s convictions and his sentence.
                                             I.
               Torres, his girlfriend, and his girlfriend’s two minor children
       shared a house together in Spring Hill, Florida. Law enforcement
       officials had learned from another criminal investigation that
       Torres was sharing child pornography through Kik, an instant-
USCA11 Case: 22-12996     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 03/19/2024    Page: 3 of 9

       22-12996              Opinion of the Court                        3

       message application. Based on this information, they obtained
       warrants to search Torres, his cell phone, and the shared residence.
              Torres’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell
       phone alleges that on November 13, 2021, officers conducting
       surveillance observed him in a boat parked on the driveway outside
       his house. Three minor children, all under the age of thirteen, were
       standing in the yard. One was Torres’s girlfriend’s eight-year-old
       daughter. The officers arrested Torres, then asked the children if
       any of them had seen Torres with his cell phone. The children led
       the officers into the house, saying they had seen Torres use his
       phone near the living room couches and recliners.
              A search of the living room did not turn anything up, but
       Torres’s girlfriend’s daughter then stated that “she knew where to
       look” next. She exited the house, entered the boat parked on the
       driveway, found the cell phone, and handed it over to the officers.
       Investigators found over 600 images of child sexual abuse material
       on the phone, including multiple images of the child who
       discovered the phone—being sexually abused by a man. When
       questioned by the police, Torres admitted that he had produced
       these images.
             Before trial, Torres moved to suppress the cell phone and its
       contents, arguing that the child had acted as an agent of the
       government when searching his boat and that the cell phone was
       thus seized in an unconstitutional, warrantless search. He also
       asked for an evidentiary hearing. The district court denied the
USCA11 Case: 22-12996    Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 03/19/2024   Page: 4 of 9

       4                     Opinion of the Court               22-12996

       motion to suppress without a hearing, finding that the child had
       not acted as the officers’ agent.
              During a bench trial, Torres renewed his objections to the
       introduction of the cell phone evidence, which the court again
       denied. The court then found Torres guilty on five counts of
       producing, distributing, and possessing child pornography in
       violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), (e) and 2252(a), (b).
              At his sentencing hearing, Torres objected to two
       sentencing enhancements recommended by his presentence
       investigation report (PSI). First, the PSI recommended an
       enhancement for engaging in a pattern of activity involving the
       sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor under U.S.S.G.
       § 2G2.2(b)(5) because, earlier in 2020, Torres had committed an
       aggravated sexual assault of a child in Galveston, Texas. Second,
       the PSI recommended a separate enhancement under U.S.S.G.
       § 4B1.5(b)(1) for being a repeat sex offender against minors, both
       because of the Texas sexual assault and because Torres had
       distributed images depicting sexual abuse of his Florida victim on
       at least three separate occasions. Torres objected to the factual
       bases for both enhancements as unsupported by the
       preponderance of the evidence.
             After taking testimony from the mother of the victim
       involved in Torres’s 2020 sexual assault, the court overruled
       Torres’s objection to both enhancements. The court sentenced
       Torres to the statutory maximum for each count to be served
USCA11 Case: 22-12996      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 03/19/2024     Page: 5 of 9

       22-12996                Opinion of the Court                          5

       consecutively, for a total imprisonment term of 110 years. Torres
       appeals.
                                         II.
              On appeal, Torres argues that the district court erred when
       it found that his motion to suppress had not raised a genuine factual
       dispute as to whether the child who found the phone in the boat
       was acting as the government’s agent when she did so. He claims
       that he is entitled to both an evidentiary hearing on the issue, as
       well as to outright reversal of the denial of his suppression motion.
       We disagree on both counts.
              A district court “may refuse a defendant’s request for a
       suppression hearing and motion to suppress if the defendant fails
       to allege facts that, if proved, would require the grant of relief.”
       United States v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1527 (11th Cir. 1985). We
       review a district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing for
       abuse of discretion. United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 874 (11th Cir.
       2011).
              When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we review
       the court’s factual determinations for clear error and questions of
       law de novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the
       prevailing party below. United States v. Thomas, 818 F.3d 1230, 1239
       (11th Cir. 2016). Clear error review is deferential, and we will not
       invalidate a district court’s findings unless we are left with a
       “definite and firm conviction” that it made a mistake. Id.
       (quotation omitted).
USCA11 Case: 22-12996         Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 03/19/2024         Page: 6 of 9

       6                          Opinion of the Court                       22-12996

              The Fourth Amendment applies only to governmental
       action; a “search by a private person does not implicate the Fourth
       Amendment unless he acts as an instrument or agent of the
       government.” United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039, 1045 (11th Cir.
       2003). In this Circuit, for a private person to be considered an agent
       of the government for Fourth Amendment purposes, we look to
       two factors: “(1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced
       in the intrusive conduct, and (2) whether the private actor’s
       purpose was to assist law enforcement efforts rather than to further
       his own ends.” Id. 1 This is a factual inquiry, subject to review only
       for clear error on appeal. See United States v. Ford, 765 F.2d 1088,
       1090 (11th Cir. 1985).
              The district court did not clearly err by finding that, under
       the facts as alleged by Torres, the officers neither knew of nor
       acquiesced to the child’s search of Torres’s boat. Torres’s motion
       to suppress alleges that while the three children and the officers
       were inside the house, one child “verbally stated to law
       enforcement officers she knew where to look for the Target

       1 The government argues that in order to meet the first prong of knowledge

       and acquiescence, the government agent must “affirmatively encourage,
       initiate or instigate” the private person’s search. In support of this
       requirement, the government’s brief cites only an unpublished case from this
       Circuit and a published case from the Tenth Circuit. See United States v. Emile,
       618 F. App’x 953, 955 (11th Cir. 2015) (unpublished); United States v. Smythe, 84
       F.3d 1240, 1243 (10th Cir. 1996). Neither is binding on this Court. Because we
       find that Torres has not met even the comparatively less demanding standard
       of knowledge and acquiescence, we need not address whether the
       government’s stricter standard applies.
USCA11 Case: 22-12996          Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 03/19/2024           Page: 7 of 9

       22-12996                    Opinion of the Court                                  7

       Cellphone next, left the Target Residence, entered the boat that
       was parked in the driveway outside of the Target Residence, and
       located and seized the Target Cellphone inside the boat near the
       helm.” He does not allege either that the officers asked the child
       to search the boat or that the officers knew the child intended to
       search the boat when she left the house.
               Under Torres’s recounting, all the officers knew was that the
       child voluntarily left the house, not that she intended to search the
       boat. With no suggestion “that the Government had any pre-
       knowledge of the search nor that the agents openly encouraged or
       cooperated in the search,” Torres cannot meet the knowledge and
       acquiescence prong of the inquiry. Ford, 765 F.2d at 1090. The
       district court therefore did not clearly err by denying the motion to
       suppress. 2 And because Torres’s allegations, even if true, would

       2 We pause to note that our predecessor Circuit has held that a search warrant

       identifying a property is “sufficient to embrace the vehicle parked in the
       driveway on those premises.” United States v. Napoli, 530 F.2d 1198, 1200 (5th
       Cir. 1976); see also Brooks v. United States, 416 F.2d 1044, 1050 (5th Cir. 1969) (a
       search warrant for a “lot and the cabin” authorizes search of an automobile
       “parked in the lot and very close to the cabin”); Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661
       F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (decisions by the former Fifth Circuit
       handed down before October 1, 1981 are binding on this Court). In this case,
       officers had a warrant to search Torres’s property, identified by both its street
       address and its physical characteristics, including a “two-car driveway.” The
       warrant even includes a picture of the house clearly depicting Torres’s boat
       parked in the driveway, immediately next to the residence. Therefore, even
       if the child’s search could be attributed to the government, the officers’
       warrant to search the property appears to have authorized a search of Torres’s
USCA11 Case: 22-12996        Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 03/19/2024        Page: 8 of 9

       8                         Opinion of the Court                     22-12996

       not have warranted suppression, the court also did not abuse its
       discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. See
       Richardson, 764 F.2d at 1527. Finally, Torres is not entitled to a
       judgment of acquittal because he stipulated during the bench trial
       that, provided the evidence from the cell phone was properly
       admitted, there was sufficient evidence to convict him at all counts.
                                            III.
             Torres next argues that the district court erred by applying
       sentencing enhancements for a pattern of sexual misconduct
       against minors under U.S.S.G. §§ 2G2.2(b)(5) and 4B1.5(b)(1). The
       government bears the burden of proving the facts underlying a
       Guidelines enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence.
       United States v. Alberts, 859 F.3d 979, 982 (11th Cir. 2017). We
       review the district court’s factual findings underlying an
       enhancement for clear error. Id.
              Both parties agree that even if Torres’s enhancement under
       U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) were eliminated, his total offense level
       would be unchanged. Any error with respect to its application was
       therefore harmless at worst, rendering remand and resentencing
       unnecessary. See United States v. Sanchez, 30 F.4th 1063, 1076–77
       (11th Cir. 2022).
             The U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) sentencing enhancement applies
       if the defendant engaged in a “pattern of activity involving

       boat as well. Because no party raised this issue, however, we do not decide it
       here.
USCA11 Case: 22-12996      Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 03/19/2024     Page: 9 of 9

       22-12996               Opinion of the Court                         9

       prohibited sexual conduct.” A defendant engaged in a “pattern”
       under § 4B1.5(b)(1) if he engaged in prohibited conduct “on at least
       two separate occasions.” Id. cmt. n.4(B)(i). Multiple offenses
       against the same victim may count for the enhancement. United
       States v. Fox, 926 F.3d 1275, 1279–80 (11th Cir. 2019).
              Below, Torres stipulated that on two separate days in July
       2021, he distributed images through his Kik messenger account
       depicting an adult man sexually abusing his Florida victim. These
       images depicted the same child, but wearing different clothing.
       Torres also stipulated that in August 2021, he had used the “live”
       function on his Kik messenger account to distribute an image of an
       adult man raping his Florida victim.
              The district court did not err by finding that these stipulated
       facts amounted to a showing that Torres had engaged in multiple
       instances of prohibited sexual conduct on different occasions. That
       the images lacked metadata definitively confirming their date of
       creation is immaterial—the fact that the images were distributed
       on different dates, that the child was wearing different clothing in
       the images, and that the August image was distributed via Kik’s
       “live” feature (suggesting it could not have been produced earlier
       at the time of the July images) all more than adequately support
       the inference that Torres sexually abused his victim on multiple,
       separate days. The enhancement was proper.
                                  *      *      *
             AFFIRMED.