United States v. Stein

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Stein

124 F. App'x 571

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 2005

DocketNo. 03-30459

StatusPublished

This text of 124 F. App'x 571 (United States v. Stein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Stein, 124 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Michael Stein appeals his conviction for attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 846. We affirm.

(1) Stein first argues that the fruits of a search conducted on January 16, 2003, must be suppressed. However, he did not raise the issue before trial and has not shown good cause for his failure so to do. Thus, we will not consider this waived issue. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(C), (e); United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2000).

(2) Stein also argues that the delay at the post office of a package sent by him and addressed to an address where he received mail amounted to an illegal seizure because it was detained without reasonable suspicion and for an unreasonable period. We disagree. Assuming that reasonable suspicion is needed to detain a package, it existed here. See United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249, 251-53, 90 S.Ct. 1029, 1032-33, 25 L.Ed.2d 282 (1970); United States v. Hernandez, 313 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Aldaz, 921 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir.1990). Moreover, the period of detention was not excessive. See Hernandez, 313 F.3d at 1212-14; United States v. Gill, 280 F.3d 923, 928-29 (9th Cir.2002); Aldaz, 921 F.2d at 230-31.

(3) Finally, Stein makes an asthenic and rather lutulent argument that his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), were somehow violated by the government’s handling of information about the quantity of cocaine. We have reviewed the record and can perceive no basis for determining that the government withheld favorable evidence about the cocaine. There was no Brady error.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Michael Stein appeals his conviction for attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 846. We affirm.

(1) Stein first argues that the fruits of a search conducted on January 16, 2003, must be suppressed. However, he did not raise the issue before trial and has not shown good cause for his failure so to do. Thus, we will not consider this waived issue. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(C), (e); United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2000).

(2) Stein also argues that the delay at the post office of a package sent by him and addressed to an address where he received mail amounted to an illegal seizure because it was detained without reasonable suspicion and for an unreasonable period. We disagree. Assuming that reasonable suspicion is needed to detain a package, it existed here. See United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249, 251-53, 90 S.Ct. 1029, 1032-33, 25 L.Ed.2d 282 (1970); United States v. Hernandez, 313 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Aldaz, 921 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir.1990). Moreover, the period of detention was not excessive. See Hernandez, 313 F.3d at 1212-14; United States v. Gill, 280 F.3d 923, 928-29 (9th Cir.2002); Aldaz, 921 F.2d at 230-31.

(3) Finally, Stein makes an asthenic and rather lutulent argument that his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), were somehow violated by the government’s handling of information about the quantity of cocaine. We have reviewed the record and can perceive no basis for determining that the government withheld favorable evidence about the cocaine. There was no Brady error.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F. App'x 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stein-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack