United States v. Eloy Silva
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10583
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- U.S. Marshals executed a parole-arrest warrant for Eloy Silva at his trailer in March 2015; after detaining Silva outside, two marshals performed a warrantless protective sweep of the trailer.
- During the sweep an officer opened a compartment under a mattress and discovered a shotgun, ammunition, and body armor; no other persons were found.
- Silva, a felon with an extensive criminal and gang-related history, was charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) for being a felon in possession of firearms/ammunition.
- Silva moved to suppress the firearm evidence, arguing (1) the protective sweep was not justified and (2) the officers exceeded its permissible scope. The district court denied suppression after an evidentiary hearing.
- Silva pleaded guilty; the PSR assigned base offense level 20, reduced two levels for acceptance under USSG § 3E1.1(a), yielding offense level 18 and a Guidelines range of 57–71 months; he was sentenced to 64 months.
- Silva also sought an extra one-level acceptance reduction under § 3E1.1(b); the court denied it because Silva’s suppression motion relied on a false factual assertion (that the compartment was locked) and thus forced the government and court to expend resources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the warrantless protective sweep was justified | Silva: No exigent circumstances justified entry/sweep | Gov: Officers reasonably feared others or weapons inside given Silva’s history and intelligence | Held: Justified — articulable facts (criminal history, gang ties, reports of a weapon, officers’ observations) supported reasonable belief of danger |
| 2. Whether officers exceeded the permissible scope of a protective sweep | Silva: Lifting the mattress and opening the compartment went beyond a quick, cursory sweep | Gov: The compartment was large enough to hide a person; sweep was brief and limited to places a person could hide | Held: No exceedance — duration and focus on spaces capable of concealing a person were within lawful sweep scope |
| 3. Whether Silva was entitled to an extra § 3E1.1(b) acceptance-of-responsibility point | Silva: He qualifies and government withheld the motion in retaliation for litigating suppression | Gov: Silva’s suppression motion falsely claimed the compartment was locked, requiring government/court resources | Held: Denied — Silva’s false factual claim forced allocation of resources so additional reduction was properly withheld |
| 4. Standard of review for suppression and guideline issues | Silva implicitly urged de novo review of legal issues | Gov: District court factual findings should be upheld unless clearly erroneous; sentencing findings highly deferential | Held: Suppression factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions de novo; refusal to grant § 3E1.1(b) given deference was not erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective-sweep doctrine; sweep limited to places where a person might hide)
- United States v. Garcia-Lopez, 809 F.3d 834 (5th Cir.) (search under mattress in trailer permissible where box spring could hide a person)
- United States v. Maldonado, 472 F.3d 388 (5th Cir.) (protective-sweep doctrine can apply even when arrest occurs outside dwelling)
- United States v. Castillo, 779 F.3d 318 (5th Cir.) (review of Sentencing Guidelines factual findings; guidance on government’s § 3E1.1(b) motion obligations)
- United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d 222 (5th Cir.) (applies highly deferential standard to district court decision denying additional acceptance credit)