United States v. Marcel King

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Marcel Daron King appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). He argues that the district court erred by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing and denying his motion to suppress his confession. He also challenges his sentence as substantively unreasonable and procedurally erroneous. We affirm.

1. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir.2000), we hold that the district court did not err by declining to grant Defendant an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. “An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress ordinarily is required if the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and non-conjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in issue.” Unit ed, States v. Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 857 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam).

Here, the moving papers were not “sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural” to suggest that material questions of fact existed. Defendant contends that a dispute of fact existed as to whether he was interrogated about the…