United States v. Eugenio Torres Padron , 296 F. App'x 834 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 17, 2008
No. 08-11895 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00153-CR-2-MEF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EUGENIO TORRES PADRON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(October 17, 2008)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eugenio Padron, who conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm
as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), appeals the denial of his motion to
suppress. Padron argues that the arresting officer lacked jurisdiction to make a
traffic stop of Padron; Padron did not voluntarily consent to the search of his
vehicle; his consent was invalid because it was given after the traffic stop ended or
should have ended; and he was arrested for a traffic misdemeanor. We affirm.
On denial of a motion to suppress, we review findings of fact for clear error
and the application of law to those facts de novo. United States v. Ramirez, 476
F.3d 1231, 1235 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2924 (2007). We construe all
facts in the light most favorable to the government. Id. at 1235–36. Arguments
that are not raised in the district court are reviewed for plain error. See United
States v. Ward, 486 F.3d 1212, 1221 (11th Cir. 2007).
The district court did not err when it denied Padron’s motion to suppress.
Officer Robbie Autrey stopped Padron within the officer’s jurisdiction for driving
an automobile without a registered license plate; Padron volunteered to a search of
his vehicle and consented a second time after he had received a written warning
for driving without a license and was free to leave; and Autrey discovered a
firearm in Padron’s vehicle and arrested Padron for possession of the weapon. At
the suppression hearing, Padron did not challenge Autrey’s testimony, which
supports the findings of the district court that the traffic stop, consent to search,
2
and arrest were lawful. See Ala. Code § 11-40-10(a); Ramirez, 476 F.3d 1231,
1236–40; United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274, 1277–82 (11th Cir. 2001). The
district court did not clearly err in its findings.
AFFIRMED.
3