United States v. Mario Herrera , 200 F. App'x 890 ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 13, 2006
No. 05-15467 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00220-CR-01-CAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIO HERRERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 13, 2006)
Before BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Appellant Mario Herrera appeals his conviction under 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii) for possession with the intent to distribute between
50 and 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine. Herrera raises five
issues on appeal: (1) denial of his motion to suppress; (2) sufficiency of the
evidence; (3) modification of a proposed voir dire question; (4) use of a deliberate
ignorance jury instruction; and (5) denial of a minor role reduction at sentencing.
As to the first issue, we conclude the district court did not err in denying the
motion to suppress. The officers had probable cause to arrest Herrera, and they
seized the narcotics during a lawful search incident to arrest. New York v. Belton,
453 U.S. 454 (1981); United States v. Acosta, 411 F.2d 627 (5th Cir. 1969);1
United States v. White, 464 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1972).
As to the second issue, after a careful review of the record, we determine
there was sufficient evidence to support Herrera’s conviction.
As to the third issue, the district court committed no error in modifying the
voir dire question.
As to the fourth issue, even if the district court erred, any error was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt.
1
In Bonnor v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981), this Court adopted
as binding precedent all decisions handed down by the former Fifth Circuit before the close of
business on September 30, 1981.
2
Finally, as to the fifth issue, the district court committed no error in denying
a minor role reduction at sentencing.
AFFIRMED.
3