United States v. James Brown , 444 F. App'x 811 ( 2011 )

Case: 10-20750 Document: 00511632558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 14, 2011
No. 10-20750
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAMES EDDIE BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CR-294-1
Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Eddie Brown pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting possession of
counterfeit securities and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment and
three years of supervised release. He reserved the right to appeal the district
court’s denial of his motion to suppress the statements he made to law
enforcement officials.
We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings
of facts, including credibility determinations, for clear error, viewing the
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-20750 Document: 00511632558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2011
No. 10-20750
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Montes,
602 F.3d 381, 384-85 (5th Cir. 2010). The voluntariness of Brown’s statements
as well as whether he invoked his right to counsel are mixed questions of law
and fact that we review de novo. See Soffar v. Cockrell, 300 F.3d 588, 592 (5th
Cir. 2002).
Brown was adequately warned of the consequences of waiving his
Miranda1 rights. See United States v. Hearn, 563 F.3d 95, 104 (5th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Sonderup, 639 F.2d 294, 297-98 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981);
United States v. Kershner, 432 F.2d 1066, 1071 (5th Cir. 1970). The district
court did not clearly err in crediting the agent’s testimony that Brown was not
promised anything in exchange for his cooperation and did not invoke his right
to counsel during the interview. See United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 283
(5th Cir. 1997). The district court did not err, much less plainly err, in failing
to suppress Brown’s statements on the basis of a fraternal privilege. See United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. To the extent that
Brown’s counsel is seeking to withdraw from representing Brown in connection
with any petition for a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court,
such motion is DENIED as premature. See Fifth Circuit Plan under the
Criminal Justice Act, § 6.
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
2