United States v. James Peter Roberts

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. James Peter Roberts

440 F. App'x 859

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 20, 2011

Docket10-13881

StatusUnpublished

This text of 440 F. App'x 859 (United States v. James Peter Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. James Peter Roberts, 440 F. App'x 859 (11th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the statement made by the Defendant was an unequivocal request for a lawyer and that he did not reinitiate any conversation with the agent. Under our prior panel rule, Burger King Corp. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 15 F.3d 166, 169 (11th Cir.1994), we find that Cannady v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 752 (11th Cir.1991), controls and requires that we reverse the ruling on the motion to suppress and remand the case for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the statement made by the Defendant was an unequivocal request for a lawyer and that he did not reinitiate any conversation with the agent. Under our prior panel rule, Burger King Corp. v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 15 F.3d 166, 169 (11th Cir.1994), we find that Cannady v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 752 (11th Cir.1991), controls and requires that we reverse the ruling on the motion to suppress and remand the case for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 F. App'x 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-peter-roberts-ca11-2011.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack