United States v. Stanley Thomas Vorsteg

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Stanley Thomas Vorsteg

134 F. App'x 419

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 2005

Docket04-13429

StatusUnpublished

This text of 134 F. App'x 419 (United States v. Stanley Thomas Vorsteg) 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. Stanley Thomas Vorsteg, 134 F. App'x 419 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Stanley T. Vorsteg appeals his conviction of manufacturing or possessing with intent to distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

*420 The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to his finding that the barn was not part of the curtilage; (2) whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to his findings that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and Investigator Tyson did not mislead Judge Estrada; (3) whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to his finding that the investigatory information for which the search warrant was based on was not stale; and (4) whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to his finding that the Leon good faith exception was applicable.

“Rulings on motions to suppress evidence involve mixed questions of law and fact. We review the factual findings of the district court for clear error and the application of the law to those facts de novo.” United States v. Brundidge, 170 F.3d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir.1999). Pertinent here, a court’s determination of “[wjhat is curtilage is a question of fact.” United States v. Berrong, 712 F.2d 1370, 1374 (11th Cir. 1983). In addition, in reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, “this Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed below.” United States v. Alexander, 835 F.2d 1406, 1408 (11th Cir.1988).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s order denying Vorsteg’s motion to suppress and Vorsteg’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Stanley T. Vorsteg appeals his conviction of manufacturing or possessing with intent to distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

*420 The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to his finding that the barn was not part of the curtilage; (2) whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to his findings that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and Investigator Tyson did not mislead Judge Estrada; (3) whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to his finding that the investigatory information for which the search warrant was based on was not stale; and (4) whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to his finding that the Leon good faith exception was applicable.

“Rulings on motions to suppress evidence involve mixed questions of law and fact. We review the factual findings of the district court for clear error and the application of the law to those facts de novo.” United States v. Brundidge, 170 F.3d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir.1999). Pertinent here, a court’s determination of “[wjhat is curtilage is a question of fact.” United States v. Berrong, 712 F.2d 1370, 1374 (11th Cir. 1983). In addition, in reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, “this Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed below.” United States v. Alexander, 835 F.2d 1406, 1408 (11th Cir.1988).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s order denying Vorsteg’s motion to suppress and Vorsteg’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 F. App'x 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stanley-thomas-vorsteg-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack