The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-2649•United States of America v. Antonio L. Horne, Sr
02-2649Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitApr 24, 2003
* The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge, United States Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-2649
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTONIO L. HORNE, SR.,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
D.C. Crim. No. 00-cr-00274-1
District Judge: The Honorable William W. Caldwell
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 11, 2003
Before: BARRY, ROSENN, Circuit Judges and POLLAK,* District Judge
(Opinion Filed: April 24, 2003)
OPINION
__________
-- 1 of 3 --
2
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Because we write primarily for the parties in this case, we will forego a recitation
of its facts. Suffice it to say, appellant Antonio Horne argues that the District Court’s
failure to suppress allegedly impermissibly obtained evidence against him warrants the
vacation of his conviction for violating the so-called “felon in possession” statute, 18
U.S.C. § 922(g). The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and
appellate jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We have carefully reviewed all of appellant’s arguments pertaining to how and
why the government wrongly obtained the evidence at issue and the ways in which the
District Court erred when it failed to suppress that evidence. We find no error. The
police had probable cause to arrest Horne based on suspicion of domestic assault and
driving under the influence. They read his Miranda rights to him, he acknowledged that
he understood them, and he then implicitly waived them. Additionally, he orally
consented and consented in writing to a search of his car. The District Court did not err
in finding that his consent was not coerced. Finally, his various due process claims are all
without merit. We will, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence for the
reasons substantially set forth in the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the
District Court.
-- 2 of 3 --
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Maryanne Trump Barry
Circuit Judge
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.