United States v. Micah Bruno ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 15 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   19-10395
    Plaintiff-Appellee,              D.C. No.
    2:17-cr-00214-KJD-VCF-1
    v.
    MICAH MECKIEL BRUNO,                             MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 10, 2021**
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Before: CLIFTON, NGUYEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    Micah Bruno appeals from his criminal conviction for uttering counterfeit
    obligations or securities. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
    suppress. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Normally, we review the denial of a suppression motion de novo and the
    underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Dixon, 
    984 F.3d 814
    ,
    818 (9th Cir. 2020). But where “the defendant attempts to raise new theories on
    appeal in support of a motion to suppress,” he must show “good cause for failing to
    present in his pre-trial motion the new theory for suppression he raises in [the]
    appeal.” United States v. Guerrero, 
    921 F.3d 895
    , 898 (9th Cir. 2019) (per
    curiam), cert. denied, 
    140 S. Ct. 1300
     (2020); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3).
    Here, like the Guerrero defendant, Bruno changed his argument on appeal.
    In the district court, he disputed the government’s factual representations
    supporting the search of his apartment. On appeal, he no longer argues that the
    search warrant application contained factual inaccuracies or material omissions.
    Rather, he argues that the facts were insufficient to establish probable cause.
    Because Bruno fails to explain why he has good cause for not raising this argument
    earlier, we deem it waived. See Guerrero, 921 F.3d at 898.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-10395

Filed Date: 3/15/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/15/2021