United States v. Brian Shreeves

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4671 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRIAN SHREEVES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00682-JFM-1) Submitted: August 23, 2017 Decided: October 4, 2017 Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles N. Curlett, Jr., LEVIN & CURLETT LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, David Metcalf, Seema Mittal, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: On December 12, 2013, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Brian Shreeves with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2013). The next day, Shreeves was arrested at the Fallon Federal Building in Baltimore, Maryland, where he was attending an immigration interview with his wife and his immigration lawyer, Steven Kreiss, as part of Shreeves’ efforts to adjust his immigration status to that of a lawful permanent resident. When the door to the interview room opened, law enforcement agents were waiting and placed Shreeves under arrest and escorted him out of the building, while his wife and immigration attorney exited a different way. Shreeves subsequently moved to suppress the statements he made following his arrest, and the district court denied the motion. A jury convicted Shreeves of the single count in the indictment, and the district court sentenced him to 66 months’ imprisonment. Shreeves timely appeals, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress these statements. When considering the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Giddins, 858 F.3d 870, 878-79 (4th Cir. 2017). We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, in this case the Government. United States v. Stover, 808 F.3d 991, 994 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 241 (2016). Shreeves contends that the district court erred in admitting his postarrest statements, arguing that they were obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to 2 counsel. “A criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings, which at least includes the point of formal charge, indictment, information, preliminary hearing, or arraignment.” United States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175 (1991)). Because he had already been indicted, Shreeves’ right to counsel attached prior to his questioning. Nevertheless, a defendant whose right to counsel has attached is entitled to waive that right in connection with a police-initiated interrogation. Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 292-93 (1988); accord Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 352 (1990) (“[N]othing in the Sixth Amendment prevents a suspect charged with ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals