Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Sallis

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

August 7, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC CORTEZ SALLIS, Defendant.

          ORDER

          LINDA R. READE, JUDGE.

         TABLE OF CONTENTS

         I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1

         II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...................... 1

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................. 2

         IV. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................ 3

         V. ANALYSIS ............................................. 5

         A. Community Caretaking ............................... 6

         B. Consent ......................................... 9

         C. Inevitable Discovery ................................ 11

         VI. CONCLUSION ......................................... 13

         I. INTRODUCTION

         The matter before the court is Defendant Eric Cortez Sallis's Objections (docket no. 26) to United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 20), which recommends that the court deny Defendant's “Motion to Suppress” (“Motion”) (docket no. 12).

         II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On April 13, 2017, a grand jury returned a two-count Indictment (docket no. 2) charging Defendant with: (1) possession of ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 992(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); and (2) possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 992(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The Indictment also contains a forfeiture allegation. On June 8, 2017, Defendant filed the Motion. On June 21, 2017, the government filed a Resistance (docket no. 17). On June 22, 2017, Judge Williams held a hearing (“Hearing”) on the Motion. See June 22, 2017 Minute Entry (docket no. 18). Defendant appeared in court with his attorney, Jill Johnston. Assistant United States Attorney Lisa Williams represented the government. On June 29, 2017, Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation, which recommends that the court deny the Motion. On July 12, 2017, Defendant filed the Objections. On July 14, 2017, Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment. See July 14, 2017 Minute Entry (docket no. 28). On July 17, 2017, Judge Williams issued a Report and Recommendation (docket no. 30), which recommended that the court accept Defendant's plea of guilty. On August 1, 2017, the court accepted the July 17, 2017 Report and Recommendation. See Order Accepting Conditional Guilty Plea (docket no. 32). The matters are fully submitted and ready for decision.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         When a party files a timely objection to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a “judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3) (“The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation.”); United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that a district judge must “undertake[] a de novo review of the disputed portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendations”). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation, receive further evidence, or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.