NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 21-1730 ________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SCOTT LANE a/k/a NYC Perv, a/k/a John Doe-2,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1-16-cr-00082-003) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on October 21, 2022
Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 11, 2023)
________________
OPINION *
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROTH, Circuit Judge
Scott Lane contends in this appeal that the District Court erred in denying his motion
to suppress evidence obtained during an interrogation. He asserts that the evidence should
have been suppressed because law enforcement violated his Miranda rights by continuing
to question him after he invoked his rights. However, the Miranda challenge that he raised
in the District Court was a different one: that he never received a Miranda warning before
questioning began. Because Lane failed to raise the argument of continuing questioning
after invocation of his Miranda rights in the District Court, he waived that ground for
appeal. Thus, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
I.
During a videoconference, Lane and several other individuals watched one member
of the videoconference call sexually abuse a six-year-old boy. After tracking his IP
address, law enforcement found Lane. They went to his studio apartment, were granted
entry by Lane’s roommate, and woke Lane. 1
Special Agent Krause then read Lane his Miranda rights. Krause handed him a
waiver form and gave him a moment to read it to himself. Krause asked Lane if he would
be willing to waive his rights and talk to him and the other agents. Lane agreed. Krause
then began questioning Lane. 2 Lane did not feel comfortable answering certain questions
“without someone present,” as he was concerned about legal implications. 3 Still, the
1 2Appx. 8–11. 2 There were other law enforcement officials present at his questioning, but Krause did the majority of the questioning. 3 2Appx. 59. 2 questioning continued until Lane said that he “didn’t want to speak any further about what
he saw because he didn’t know the law.” He then asked for an attorney. 4 At that point,
questioning ceased.
Lane later moved to suppress the statement he gave to law enforcement. In his
motion to suppress, Lane asserted that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
Lane first stated that he was subject to a custodial interrogation absent Miranda warnings.
Lane then stated that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he was questioned
post-indictment with no lawyer present.
The District Court held a suppression hearing on Lane’s motion. At the suppression
hearing, Krause testified that he read Lane his Miranda rights from a Miranda waiver, gave
the Miranda waiver to Lane, and then provided Lane with an opportunity to read it to
himself. Lane’s own testimony confirms that he did sign the form. Krause also testified
that no agent informed Lane that he was under investigation.
The District Court denied Lane’s motion. The court found that Lane’s initials and
signature on the Miranda waiver contradicted his argument that he had never received his
warnings in the first instance. 5 Moreover, because the Miranda warnings were proper, the
court found Lane’s statements to law enforcement to be voluntary. 6 The court also found
4 2Appx.18. 5 Appx. 28. 6 1Appx. 29 (citing United States v. Andrews, 231 F. App’x 174, 176-77 (3d. Cir. 2007) for the proposition that “defendant’s statements [are] voluntary when police advised defendant of his Miranda rights, gave defendant a written copy of the Miranda warnings, and prompted defendant to read portions of the warnings aloud and write his initials after each warning”). 3 that Lane’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated at that time because, despite his
indictment, “the validly-executed waiver of his Miranda rights constituted a knowing and
intelligent waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” 7
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 because Lane violated a
federal statute. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
III.
“It is axiomatic that a party who fails to object to errors or to raise issues at trial waives
the right to complain on appeal.” 8 At the same time, “for parties to preserve an argument
for appeal, they must have raised the same argument in the District Court—merely raising
an issue that encompasses the appellate argument is not enough. Consequently, the degree
of particularity required to preserve an argument is exacting.” 9 “[A]bsent exceptional
circumstances, issues not raised before the district court are waived on appeal.” 10 Thus, “a
suppression argument raised for the first time on appeal is waived (i.e., completely barred)
absent good cause.” 11
7 1Appx. 30 (citing United States v. Charria, 919 F.2d 842, 848 (2d Cir. 1990)). 8 Fleck v. KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc., 981 F.2d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 1992). 9 United States v. Joseph, 730 F.3d 336, 337 (3d Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). 10 Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Brenner v. Local 514, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 927 F.2d 1283, 1298 (3d Cir. 1991)). 11 United States v. Rose, 538 F.3d 175, 182 (3d Cir. 2008). “This rule applies not only when defendants altogether fail to raise any suppression arguments in the District Court, but also when defendants fail to raise particular arguments later advanced on appeal.” Joseph, 730 F.3d at 338 (citing Rose, 538 F.3d at 182). 4 Our ruling in United States v. Joseph 12 is instructive. In that case, we found that,
“[a] legal challenge that presents multiple avenues for granting relief is a broad issue. But
if the legal challenge presents a single point of contention, which may not be recast or
reframed to address a conceptually distinct contention, then what has been advanced is an
argument.” 13 This distinction between an issue and an argument is crucial because “raising
an issue in the District Court is insufficient to preserve for appeal all arguments bearing on
that issue. Instead, to preserve a suppression argument, a party must make the same
argument in the District Court that he makes on appeal.” 14
The issue here is the same in both the District Court and before us – violation of
Miranda rights. However, the arguments that Lane preserved are substantively different
from the argument that he raises to this Court. In the District Court, Lane claimed that his
Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he was not properly Mirandized.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 21-1730 ________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SCOTT LANE a/k/a NYC Perv, a/k/a John Doe-2,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1-16-cr-00082-003) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on October 21, 2022
Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 11, 2023)
________________
OPINION *
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROTH, Circuit Judge
Scott Lane contends in this appeal that the District Court erred in denying his motion
to suppress evidence obtained during an interrogation. He asserts that the evidence should
have been suppressed because law enforcement violated his Miranda rights by continuing
to question him after he invoked his rights. However, the Miranda challenge that he raised
in the District Court was a different one: that he never received a Miranda warning before
questioning began. Because Lane failed to raise the argument of continuing questioning
after invocation of his Miranda rights in the District Court, he waived that ground for
appeal. Thus, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
I.
During a videoconference, Lane and several other individuals watched one member
of the videoconference call sexually abuse a six-year-old boy. After tracking his IP
address, law enforcement found Lane. They went to his studio apartment, were granted
entry by Lane’s roommate, and woke Lane. 1
Special Agent Krause then read Lane his Miranda rights. Krause handed him a
waiver form and gave him a moment to read it to himself. Krause asked Lane if he would
be willing to waive his rights and talk to him and the other agents. Lane agreed. Krause
then began questioning Lane. 2 Lane did not feel comfortable answering certain questions
“without someone present,” as he was concerned about legal implications. 3 Still, the
1 2Appx. 8–11. 2 There were other law enforcement officials present at his questioning, but Krause did the majority of the questioning. 3 2Appx. 59. 2 questioning continued until Lane said that he “didn’t want to speak any further about what
he saw because he didn’t know the law.” He then asked for an attorney. 4 At that point,
questioning ceased.
Lane later moved to suppress the statement he gave to law enforcement. In his
motion to suppress, Lane asserted that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
Lane first stated that he was subject to a custodial interrogation absent Miranda warnings.
Lane then stated that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he was questioned
post-indictment with no lawyer present.
The District Court held a suppression hearing on Lane’s motion. At the suppression
hearing, Krause testified that he read Lane his Miranda rights from a Miranda waiver, gave
the Miranda waiver to Lane, and then provided Lane with an opportunity to read it to
himself. Lane’s own testimony confirms that he did sign the form. Krause also testified
that no agent informed Lane that he was under investigation.
The District Court denied Lane’s motion. The court found that Lane’s initials and
signature on the Miranda waiver contradicted his argument that he had never received his
warnings in the first instance. 5 Moreover, because the Miranda warnings were proper, the
court found Lane’s statements to law enforcement to be voluntary. 6 The court also found
4 2Appx.18. 5 Appx. 28. 6 1Appx. 29 (citing United States v. Andrews, 231 F. App’x 174, 176-77 (3d. Cir. 2007) for the proposition that “defendant’s statements [are] voluntary when police advised defendant of his Miranda rights, gave defendant a written copy of the Miranda warnings, and prompted defendant to read portions of the warnings aloud and write his initials after each warning”). 3 that Lane’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated at that time because, despite his
indictment, “the validly-executed waiver of his Miranda rights constituted a knowing and
intelligent waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” 7
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 because Lane violated a
federal statute. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
III.
“It is axiomatic that a party who fails to object to errors or to raise issues at trial waives
the right to complain on appeal.” 8 At the same time, “for parties to preserve an argument
for appeal, they must have raised the same argument in the District Court—merely raising
an issue that encompasses the appellate argument is not enough. Consequently, the degree
of particularity required to preserve an argument is exacting.” 9 “[A]bsent exceptional
circumstances, issues not raised before the district court are waived on appeal.” 10 Thus, “a
suppression argument raised for the first time on appeal is waived (i.e., completely barred)
absent good cause.” 11
7 1Appx. 30 (citing United States v. Charria, 919 F.2d 842, 848 (2d Cir. 1990)). 8 Fleck v. KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc., 981 F.2d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 1992). 9 United States v. Joseph, 730 F.3d 336, 337 (3d Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). 10 Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Brenner v. Local 514, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 927 F.2d 1283, 1298 (3d Cir. 1991)). 11 United States v. Rose, 538 F.3d 175, 182 (3d Cir. 2008). “This rule applies not only when defendants altogether fail to raise any suppression arguments in the District Court, but also when defendants fail to raise particular arguments later advanced on appeal.” Joseph, 730 F.3d at 338 (citing Rose, 538 F.3d at 182). 4 Our ruling in United States v. Joseph 12 is instructive. In that case, we found that,
“[a] legal challenge that presents multiple avenues for granting relief is a broad issue. But
if the legal challenge presents a single point of contention, which may not be recast or
reframed to address a conceptually distinct contention, then what has been advanced is an
argument.” 13 This distinction between an issue and an argument is crucial because “raising
an issue in the District Court is insufficient to preserve for appeal all arguments bearing on
that issue. Instead, to preserve a suppression argument, a party must make the same
argument in the District Court that he makes on appeal.” 14
The issue here is the same in both the District Court and before us – violation of
Miranda rights. However, the arguments that Lane preserved are substantively different
from the argument that he raises to this Court. In the District Court, Lane claimed that his
Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he was not properly Mirandized.
The argument for the violation of his Fifth Amendment rights was that he never received
his Miranda warnings despite being subject to a custodial interrogation. The argument he
presented for the violation of his Sixth Amendment rights was that he should not have been
subject to a purportedly custodial interrogation after being indicted.
According to his opening brief, the issue that Lane raises on appeal is “whether the
district court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence where law enforcement
continued to interrogated [sic] appellant while in custodial detention, after he evoked [sic]
12 Joseph, 730 F.3d at 338. 13 Id. at 342. 14 Id. at 341. 5 his right to counsel, in violation of his fifth amendment rights.” 15 This is a substantively
different argument. The arguments in the District Court presumed that Lane did not receive
his Miranda warnings in the first instance. Yet the argument that Lane presents here is that
he did receive his Miranda warnings, but law enforcement violated them when agents
continued to question him after he asked for counsel.
Lane contends that his “ability to seek review” was preserved when the District
Court accepted his plea agreement. More particularly, the plea agreement itself states that
Lane’s plea was conditional and did in fact “[reserve] the right on appeal to review the
adverse determinations made by the District Court regarding the pretrial motions [that he]
filed.” 16 Indeed, Lane did preserve the arguments that he made to the District Court.
However, those are not the argument before us. 17
Accordingly, because Lane’s contention that questioning continued after he invoked
his Miranda rights was not presented to the District Court, it is waived.
IV.
15 Opening Br. at 2. 16 Id. at 10. 17 Even if we were to entertain Lane’s argument, we would still conclude that his statements were voluntary. A confession is voluntary when it is “‘the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker,’ that it was ‘the product of a rational intellect and a free will,’ and that the appellant’s will was not ‘overborne.’” United States v. Swint, 15 F.3d 286, 289 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting United States ex rel. Hayward v. Johnson, 508 F.2d 322, 326 (3d Cir. 1975)). Additionally, there is no requirement that the investigator advise an interrogee that he is a suspect in order for his Miranda waiver to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. See United States v. Velasquez, 885 F.2d 1076, 1086 (3d Cir. 1989) (“In analyzing the totality of the circumstances, we must look at the facts of the particular case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the suspect.”). 6 For the above stated reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.