Court Opinion

ID: 9392386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 18:00:25.070915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.709276
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20275        Document: 00516738135             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                     May 4, 2023
                                      No. 22-20275
                                    Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Afzal Arsalan Rehman,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:19-CR-254-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Afzal Rehman appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a
   firearm by an alien and misrepresentation of citizenship. He contends that
   the district court committed reversible error in admitting evidence seized
   from his cell phones. Rehman maintains that he provided the FBI agents the
   passcodes to access the phones during a suppressed FBI interview, so the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20275     Document: 00516738135           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                    No. 22-20275

   evidence should have been excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree.
          We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v.
   Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2011). Any error in admitting the evi-
   dence is subject to harmless-error review, and “[u]nless there is a reasonable
   possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the convic-
   tion, reversal is not required.” United States v. Okulaja, 21 F.4th 338, 344
   (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review
   evidentiary ruling for plain error where a “defendant did not object to the
   evidence on the basis presented on appeal.” United States v. Williams,
   620 F.3d 483, 488-89 (5th Cir. 2010). The parties disagree on the applicable
   standard of review. We need not decide whether Rehman properly preserved
   the issue because, regardless of the standard of review, his argument fails.
   See Hernandez v. United States, 888 F.3d 219, 222–23 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, “all evidence derived
   from the exploitation of an illegal search or seizure must be suppressed,
   unless the Government shows that there was a break in the chain of events
   sufficient to refute the inference that the evidence was a product of the
   Fourth Amendment violation.” United States v. Cotton, 722 F.3d 271, 278
   (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A search
   conducted pursuant to consent is excepted from the Fourth Amendment’s
   warrant and probable cause requirements.” United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d
   420, 436 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Rehman’s argument implicating the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doc-
   trine is unavailing because the evidence supports that his consent to the
   search of the phones and his disclosure of the passcodes occurred before the
   suppressed FBI interview. See Cotton, 722 F.3d at 278. Furthermore, Reh-
   man does not aver that his consent to search his cell phones was obtained
   involuntarily. See Solis, 299 F.3d at 436. AFFIRMED.

                                             2