United States v. Cintron, 724 F.3d 32

Trooper Gaudet observed a Nissan Maxima driving erratically on Route 128 and stopped it in Lynnfield; Cintron was draped across the backseat and a gun protruded from his pocket as he was being helped out.
Cintron was arrested and gave statements at the station; a Miranda waiver issue became central to suppression motions.
First suppression motion (July 2008) was filed by court-appointed counsel, claiming Cintron did not consent to stop or search; Cintron later had retained counsel.
August 2008 government opposition attached troopers’ reports; troopers’ accounts were largely consistent about seeing the gun before frisk.
District court denied suppression without an evidentiary hearing, relying on plain-view seizure; an evidentiary hearing was later held; Cintron’s drug-recognition expert testified Cintron appeared impaired.
In 2009–2010, Cintron’s retained counsel and then the federal defender raised new inconsistencies in troopers’ accounts; Cintron submitted a second affidavit and photographs; the district court treated these as untimely and lacking credibility, denying new hearings and affirming plain-view seizure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on Cintron’s second motion to suppress and motion to reconsider.	Cintron contends material facts were in dispute due to inconsistent troopers’ accounts.	United States argues no threshold showing of disputed material facts warranted an evidentiary hearing.	No abuse; no substantial factual dispute under standard for hearings.
Whether government letters altering troopers’ accounts were material to the suppression ruling.	Cintron claims inconsistencies undermine the plain-view finding.	Letters did not alter dispositive fact of seeing the gun before seizure.	Not material; plain-view finding stands.
Whether Cintron’s second affidavit and photographs created a material dispute requiring a hearing.	Second affidavit raises new facts about proximity and visibility of the gun.	Affidavit untimely and not credible; photos do not create dispute.	Untimely/not credible; no hearing required.

United States v. D’Andrea, 648 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (hearing on suppression only if threshold factual dispute remains)
United States v. Francois, 715 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013) (threshold showing required for evidentiary hearing)
Allen v. United States, 573 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2009) (newly discovered evidence standard for reconsideration)
United States v. Staula, 80 F.3d 596 (1st Cir. 1996) (discretion in ruling on suppression and hearings)
United States v. Calderon, 77 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1996) (defendant bears burden to plead definite facts showing dispute)
United States v. Brown, 621 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (review of district court’s decision for abuse of discretion)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (plain-view seizure considerations in warrantless searches)
Awon v. United States, 308 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2002) (district court may rely on broader record in evaluating affidavits)