Court Opinion

ID: 9921660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 01:00:33.451634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:43.936097
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10385           Document: 00517036849             Page: 1          Date Filed: 01/18/2024

                United States Court of Appeals
                     for the Fifth Circuit
                                        ____________
                                                                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                            Fifth Circuit
                                         No. 23-10385
                                       Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                       ____________                                 January 18, 2024
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
      United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                            Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                               versus

      David Devaney, Sr.,

                                                 Defendant—Appellant.
                        ______________________________

                        Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the Northern District of Texas
                                 USDC No. 4:22-CR-213-1
                        ______________________________

      Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
      Per Curiam: *
              David Devaney, Sr., challenges: the denial of his motion to suppress
      statements made to law-enforcement officers; and his within-Guidelines
      480-months’ sentence imposed after his bench-trial conviction (based on
      stipulated facts) for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams
      or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
              Regarding the denial of the suppression motion, Devaney contends his
      waiver under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was invalid because

_____________________
*
    This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10385      Document: 00517036849           Page: 2       Date Filed: 01/18/2024

                                     No. 23-10385

   he was not rational at the time of the interview, caused by his
   methamphetamine withdrawal and the stress of solitary confinement. He
   asserts law enforcement violated his rights by failing to ascertain and confirm
   he was rational before accepting his waiver.
          For the denial of a suppression motion, review of factual findings is for
   clear error; legal conclusions, de novo. E.g., United States v. Carrillo, 660 F.3d
   914, 922 (5th Cir. 2011). “The evidence introduced at the suppression
   hearing is viewed in the light most favorable to the government, as the
   prevailing party.” United States v. Gonzalez, 190 F.3d 668, 671 (5th Cir.
   1999). “The district court’s ruling should be upheld if there is any reasonable
   view of the evidence to support it.” United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433,
   440 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
          Contrary to Devaney’s contention, “[t]he sole concern of the Fifth
   Amendment, on which Miranda was based, is governmental coercion”.
   Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 170 (1986).            “Indeed, the Fifth
   Amendment privilege is not concerned with moral and psychological
   pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.”
   Id. (citation omitted). Devaney identifies no cognizable, official coercion.
          For the first time on appeal, Devaney challenges the substantive
   reasonableness of his sentence, by contending Guideline § 2D1.1 is flawed
   and lacks an empirical basis. We need not engage in the resulting plain-error
   review, however, because he concedes this issue is foreclosed by our court’s
   precedent. See United States v. Lara, 23 F.4th 459, 485–86 (5th Cir.)
   (rejecting same challenge), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2790 (2022). He presents
   the issue solely to preserve it for possible further review.
          AFFIRMED.
          Judge Graves concurs only in the judgment.

                                           2