United States v. Melancon, 662 F.3d 708

David Melancon drove in a car under fire from Arnold Wyatt; he returned fire and was wounded.
Higgins, a passenger, initially implicated David; Higgins later threw the gun from the car, and authorities recovered it.
Higgins provided an initial statement implicating David; Michael Melancon allegedly authored or typed a revised affidavit exculpating David.
Michael, an inmate counselor, was interviewed by ATF agent Pecora and AUSA Landrieu; he claimed Higgins prepared the handwritten affidavit and that Michael had only typed it.
A marked-up factual statement in Michael's possession prompted renewed questions; Michael terminated the interview and sought counsel.
Michael was charged with multiple counts including making a false document and obstruction; the district court denied suppression and trial proceeded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Michael in custody for Miranda purposes during the Pecora/Landrieu interview?	Melancon argues custody required Miranda warnings.	Government contends no custody and statements themselves are criminal.	Statements admitted; not reversible error on suppression.
Was there sufficient evidence that Michael knew the affidavit was false?	Melancon contends lack of knowledge of falsity.	Higgins's credibility could support falsity attributed to Michael.	Sufficient evidence for knowledge of falsity; credibility question for jury.
Was the constructive-possession instruction properly given despite asserted mismatch with facts?	David argues instruction misstates theory and confuses jury.	Government presented joint-occupancy and dominion evidence justifying constructive possession.	No reversible error; instruction permissible under the record.
Are sentencing enhancements based on acquitted conduct allowable?	Challenge to enhancements foreclosed by Watts/precedent.	Seeks to preserve for further review; lower courts bound by Supreme Court.	Affirmed sentencing; cannot overrule Supreme Court precedent.

Kirk v. United States, 528 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir. 1976) (statements themselves can be criminal without Miranda issue)
Smith, 7 F.3d 1164 (5th Cir. 1993) (Miranda not required if statements themselves are crimes)
Jones, 484 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2007) (definition of actual vs. constructive possession)
Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1997) (acquitted-conduct sentencing limitations)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (custody determination is objective; prison setting can affect Miranda triggers)
Martinez, 975 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1992) (knowledge of falsity assessed as credibility issue for jury)
Schatzer, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) (Supreme Court on custody and interrogation in prison context)
Fields v. Howes, 617 F.3d 813 (6th Cir. 2010) (bright-line custody rule for prison interrogations (discussed)