United States v. Juan Garcia ( 2018 )

Case: 15-51196 Document: 00514492685 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 15-51196
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar May 30, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN L. GARCIA, also known as Juan Garcia,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:14-CV-843
USDC No. 5:10-CR-708-2
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
A jury found Juan L. Garcia, federal prisoner # 64893-280, guilty of
conspiring to possess intending to distribute heroin, possessing heroin
intending to distribute it, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, and he ultimately received a total prison sentence of 181
months. In his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking that conviction and
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 15-51196 Document: 00514492685 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2018
No. 15-51196
sentence, Garcia argued, among other things, that in light of the Supreme
Court’s holding in Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), which was
decided after Garcia’s conviction became final, the warrantless search of his
cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied relief,
but observing that we have not yet determined whether Riley applies
retroactively to cases on collateral review, it granted Garcia a certificate of
appealability on the issue whether he “has been denied his constitutional right
to be free from unreasonable searches pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.”
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its
conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Redd, 562 F.3d 309, 311 (5th Cir.
2009). We may affirm the denial of § 2255 relief on any basis supported by the
record. Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 2000); Aeby v. United
States, 409 F.2d 1, 2 (5th Cir. 1969). Because Garcia “had a full and fair
opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in pre-trial proceedings
and on direct appeal,” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494-95 and n.37 (1976),
bars collateral review of that claim. United States v. Ishmael, 343 F.3d 741,
742 (5th Cir. 2003). Any relevant change in the law brought about by Riley is
of no moment because “a change in the law does not, by itself, render
proceedings any less ‘full and fair’ for purposes of Stone.” Id.AFFIRMED.
2