United States Sixth Circuit

Conviction of defendant for drug related crimes is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for funds to obtain a drug-dog expert; 2) because the search of the vehicle was supported by probable cause, independent of defendant's unlawful arrest, the cash contained inside of the vehicle was properly seized; 3) facts are more than sufficient to establish probable cause that criminal activity was taking place at a second mobile home; 4) district court properly declined to suppress the evidence inside the second mobile home; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion when it sustained the government's objection to the question put to a witness; 6) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to recall an agent to testify about his 2003 encounter with defendant; 7) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial; and 8) the evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient to sustain defendant's convictions for conspiring to possess and distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine, and for attempting to possess and distribute the drug.

Appellate Information

• Argued 07/28/2010
• Decided 09/14/2010
• Published 09/14/2010

Judges

• GILMAN

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• M. Keith Davis, Scott A. Winne