United States v. Carlos Poom-Medina

MEMORANDUM

Defendant challenges his 2013 convictions for possession of a firearm as an alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(5)(a) & 924(a)(2), and illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). Defendant contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain physical evidence (a firearm) and statements made by him to officers. We affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a suppression motion. United States v. Jones, 286 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir.2002). We review the district court’s underlying factual finding that Defendant voluntarily consented to' the entry and search under a clearly erroneous standard. Id.

1.The district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. “[A] search conducted pursuant to a valid consent is constitutionally permissible.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). The district court’s finding that Defendant consented to the agents’ request to enter his home and search for illegal aliens did not constitute clear error. The district court correctly applied the five guidepost factors set forth in United States v. Patayan Soriano.…