United States v. Stephen D. Akridge

Sixth Circuit. GILMAN, DAUGHTREY, Before: Argued April 2003. COLLIER, District Judges and Circuit Judge.* Decided and Filed Oct. motion petitioners

Now before us is rehear, in which BE&K Construction prior of re

argues both that our order district is too limited

mand to the court

and that it is unwarranted. We have the response agreeing peti

NLRB’s with the argument arguing

tioner’s first for accepted have also

unlimited remand. We response of the interve

and reviewed

nors. consideration,

Upon grant further petition pre- to rehear amend the

vious order of remand to read as follows: hereby

The case REMANDED to the

National Labor Relations Board for fur- proceedings

ther consistent with the Supreme

United States Court’s decision v. Na- Company BE&K Construction Board,

tional Labor Relations * nessee, Collier, sitting by designation. Curtis L. The Honorable United States Judge District for the Eastern District of Ten- briefed),

Gary (argued Humble As- Attorney, sistant United States Chattanoo- TN, ga, Plaintiff-Appellee. for briefed), (argued Rita C. LaLumia Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc., TN, Chattanooga, for De- fendant-Appellant. Pollock, LA, D.

Stephen Akridge, pro se. ROGERS, Before: Circuit MOORE KATZ, Judges; Judge.* District KATZ, D.J., opinion delivered the court, ROGERS, J., joined. which MOORE, 633-637), (pp. J. delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

OPINION KATZ, District Judge. Defendant-Appellant Stephen D. Ak ridge appeals pos from his convictions for sessing crack cocaine with intent distribute, conspiring possess crack co * Katz, Ohio, sitting by designation. The Honorable A. United States David Judge District for the Northern District distribute, possess the intent to was still under investigation caine with federal in re- ing a firearm furtherance January lation to the 1999 charges. offense,

trafficking possessing a fire Following the suggest- officer having after been convicted of a felo arm ed that the three residents decide who ny. Akridge’s appeal contention on is that accept would the blame for the contra- suppressed court the district should band, and allegedly indicated that he and trial pre-trial statements testimo would see the other two residents Akridge’s alleged co-conspirators, ny result, would not charged. be As a Stew- Tiffany Ellison and as the Kevin jail art was taken and Akridge fruits of an search. The Govern Ellison were left at the apartment. Stew- argues ment was ad art apparently was later released on her missible under either the “inevitable dis recognizance. own covery” exceptions or “attenuation” to the exclusionary For the rea following rule. 19, ATF On June 2000 officials inter- sons, AFFIRM the district court’s de Ellison, Akridge, viewed and Stewart re- Akridge’s suppression nial of motion. garding May 2000 search of their resi- dence. All three admitted selling crack

I. BACKGROUND marijuana, cocaine and Akridge alleg- 25, January Chattanooga police On 1999 edly further admitted to firearms posses- obtained a warrant to search Kel- оfficers and selling drugs Arlington sion from the residence, vin pursuant to which residence, although Avenue he mak- denies marijuana officers recovered and firearms. ing such a confession. time, At the a Ellison was convicted felon Stewart, Akridge, and Ellison subse- Special and the matter was referred to quently 20, were arrested on June 2000 for Agent Cordell Malone at the Bureau of drug trafficking and possession. firearms Alcohol, (“ATF”), and Firearms Tobacco 27, On June 2000 Stewart executed a presented

who in turn the case to the agreement, not entered of record with the Attorney’s prose- United States Office for 5, 2001, January until Court which she cution. pled guilty charge aiding and abet- 2, 2000, early morning May In the ting Akridge drug Ellison and traffick- Chattanooga police officers received an 3, ing. On 2000 the October Government anonymous telephone tip reporting that plea agreement reached a with Ellison. Arlington the residents of 824 Avenue 22, January On 2001 the district court selling drugs. response were granted Akridge’s September 2000 mo- complaint, officers conducted a “knock and residence, suppress during tion to evidence seized talk” at the which was shared May apartment, 2000 search of his as well Elli- by Akridge and his roommates Kevin given as his Tiffany During subsequent son and statement on June Stewart. Thereafter, marijuana, April 2000.2 on 2001 apartment, of the officers found cocaine, enlarge filed a Akridge scope and three loaded semi-automatic motion to search, At time of pistols.1 prior suppression Ellison of the district court’s infra, 1. As discussed further the officers con- 2. The district court determined that the Chat- tanooga police obtaining officers’ method of pursuant ducted the search to the residents' consent, consent to search warranted exclusion of not ultimately which the district court only physical May evidence seized in the determined was coerced. Akridge’s subsequent 2000 but also June 19 confession. 622 § pos- and future base in violation of 21 U.S.C. encompass previous all

order to the intent to distribute co- Ellison and session with testimony of co-defendants of 21 Stewart, caine base violation U.S.C. reasoning that the was 841(a)(1), § possession of a 9mm semi-au- May of the a direct result pistol tomatic in furtherance of traf- mоtion that is at issue on search. It is this ficking for the October 1999 period crimes appeal. 2,May 2000 in violation of 18 U.S.C. hearing court conducted a The district 924(c)(1)(A), being posses- § a felon in By April on the on motion pistol sion a 9mm semi-automatic on or the court did not agreement parties, of the December 1999 in violation of 18 about on the hear but rather relied § 922(g)(1). U.S.C. suppres- the earlier findings factual from A pre-sentence report prepared, three affidavits hearing, plus sion new Akridge objected part which because Ellison, ATF Agent Ma- report predicated included information record, the dis- lone. After review upon statements made Ellison Akridge’s motion and on trict court denied ultimately court Stewart. The district Akridge proceeded to trial. on sentenced to 360 months testified on At trial Ellison run concurrently Counts and with prosecution. behalf The Govern- of 120 months on Count 6. The district court Ak- presented ment of also Akridge further sentenced to 300 months aunt,3 neighbor Akridge’s as ridge’s consecutively, on 5 to be served Count incriminatory phone of an tape well as a resulting in a of imprison- total 660 months County jаil call the Hamilton made from ment. by girlfriend.4 Akridge to his Akridge timely appeal filed a notice of that he Ellison testified at trial had 21, on September 2001 and asserts that the Akridge approximately known for fifteen exclusionary requires suppression rule of years had lived with him from October the statements and trial Elli- Elli- According ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍1999 until 2000. son and Stewart. son, Akridge supported he and themselves during period by selling this crack cocaine II. DISCUSSION marijuana. testified Ellison also about A. Standard Review Akridge’s possession and use of firearms. We review the district court’s girlfriend, Ellison’s lived with ruling on un Akridge’s suppression motion Akridge Ellison and testified about der a mixed standard of review. See Unit distributing drugs Akridge her for role 624, Galloway, ed States v. 316 F.3d 628 and Ellison. Stewart also testified about (6th Cir.2003). We reverse the district Akridge’s possession use firearms. only they court’s if findings fact are erroneous, jury guilty clearly

The returned verdicts on but review de novo the 1, 4, 5, 6, Counts and which respectively legal district court’s conclusions. United Hurst, (6th charged Akridge conspiracy with v. dis- States 756 Cir.2000). Where, here, fifty grams tribute in excess of of cocaine the district Akridge’s neighbor cooperation aunt and both testified with the Government and com- they purchased drugs Akridge. had plained disclosing everything that Ellison was Akridge had done since he was released Government, by during 4. As characterized penitentiary. from the phone call criticized

623 obtained as a result of suppress, Evidence direct has denied a motion court light in a most favor an unconstitutional search or seizure is the evidence review See United subject to the Government. to exclusion. The plainly ques- able Harris, 288, 291 v. 255 F.3d tion be resolved when is claimed Cir.2001) Garza, v. 10 (citing United States subsequently that evidence obtained is (6th Cir.1993)). 1241, 1245 F.3d prior illegality “tainted” or is “fruit” of a challenged is whether the evidence was Exclusionary Rule B. “ by exploitation ‘come at ini- [the exclusionary generally The rule or illegality tial] instead means suf- admissibility tangible at trial of bars the ficiently distinguishable purged to be statements, evidence, ac as well as verbal ” primary taint.’ through unconstitutional means. quired It has well for more been established States, Wong v. 371 U.S. See Sun United years that evidence is not to than be 471, 485, 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 83 S.Ct. if excluded the connection between the (1963). rule excludes from admissibil The illegal police discovery conduct and the obtained as ity only primary “not evidence and seizure of the evidence is “so attenu- result of an search or sei a direct taint,” dissipate ated as to Nardone States, zure, v. United 232 U.S. Weeks States, supra, at United S.Ct. (1914), L.Ed. 652 but also excluded, 266. It is not to be for exam- and found to be evidence later discovered ple, “independent if had an ‘fruit of the illegality of an or derivative ” discovery source” for of the evidenced] Segura tree.’ v. United poisonous States, 468 U.S. S.Ct. 804-05, Segura, 468 U.S. 104 S.Ct. 3380 (1984) Nardone v. (quoting 82 L.Ed.2d 599 omitted). (internal citation States, 338, 341, 60 S.Ct. United many legal principles, Like the ex (1939)); 266, Murray L.Ed. 307 see also 84 subject numerous clusionary rule is ex States, 533, 536-37, v. 487 U.S. 108 United In addi ceptions scope. that diminish its (1988) (“[T]he 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 S.Ct. independent the source developing tion to exclusionary prohibits rule also the intro action, doctrine, at in the instant issue evidence, tangi both duction of derivative the Supreme the' has also endorsed testimonial, Court product that is the ble and doctrine, discovery Nix v. evidence, see or that is otherwise inevitable primary Williams, 104 an indirect result of the unlaw 467 S.Ct. 81 acquired as U.S. search, (1984), at which the point ful to the 377 under which the exclu up L.Ed.2d with the unlawful search be if the inapplicable, connection is even sionary rule dissipate unlawful, ‘so attenuated as to comes initial search and arrest were ”). exclusionary suppression taint’ “The or inevitably would to evidence judicially prescribed remedial rule is Mur by lawful means. been discovered device, any remedial (“The measure and as ‘with 2529 ray, 487 at 108 S.Ct. U.S. of the rule has been re application doctrine, with its dis discovery inevitable remedial stricted to those areas where its requirements, reality extrapo is in an tinct efficaciously most objectives thought are independent source doc lation from the 104 Segura, served.’” 468 U.S. the tainted evidence would be trine: Since v. Ca (quoting S.Ct. 3380 United States through if in fact discovered admissible landra, 338, 348, 613, 38 414 U.S. 94 S.Ct. source, be admissi it should independent (1974)). L.Ed.2d 561 inevitably been discov if it would have ble ered.”). explained Segura: As

624 developing forego identity the two

Beyond and of the witnesses and their rule, exclusionary relationship ing exceptions pre- to the defendant was not viously police, known to the Supreme has further delineated would not Court to the have beеn discovered the absence of the applicable suppression standards seareh[; pro- testimony, and] [t]he live see United States v. witnesses witness regarding 98 S.Ct. 55 vided statement crimes [sic] (1978), would not L.Ed.2d which some courts which have been discovered ab- 268 sent apply consequent have come to under the rubric of the See, e.g., prosecution.” at 124. “attenuation doctrine.” United J.A. (4th McKinnon, v. 244 F.3d Cir. ruling on Akridge’s suppression mo- 1996); Dickson, v. United States tion, the district sep- court articulated two (8th Cir.1995); v. Terza United States denying Rely- arate bases for the motion. do-Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099 Cir. ing on fact already that Ellison was 1990). Ceccolini, “a Under witness’ testi under federal investigation for traf- mony may be admitted even when his ficking and possession, firearms the dis- identity was discovered an unconstitu trict court first determined that the trial Leon, tional search.” United States 468 testimony of Ellison and Stewart inevita- 897, 911, U.S. 82 L.Ed.2d bly would have been discovered. The (1984); see also court reasoned that the investigation of

275-78, (concluding 98 S.Ct. 1054 that Ellison would have revealed his relation- “since excluding the cost of live-witness Stewart, ship Akridge in light closer, testimony greater, will be often prior of Ellisоn’s averment that the fire- illegality more direct link between arms charge heavily influenced his deci- required”). that kind of action, respect sions with to the instant action, court exclusionary

In the determined that instant the district court rule did not apply testimony. under to Ellison’s determined that both Ceccolini and doctrine, As to discovery court reasoned that the inevitable the ex- would clusionary require rule did not Government have elicited exclusion of Stewart, notwithstanding testimony. ap- Ellison’s and Stewart’s On due to peal, Akridge relationship Stewart’s asserts that neither of these with Ellison and her applicable willingness doctrines is to save the testimo- to enter review, ny plea, her even before the Upon judge from exclusion. find district had we adopt magistrate’s that ruled on whether to the the district court denied Ak- properly ridge’s recommendation to suppress motion. the evidence the May 2000 search. Findings C. District Court’s anAs alternative basis for its ruling, the motion, In the enlargement district court determined that the Ceccoli- suppress moved to all “any and statements ni factors weighed against exclusion. In given, previous testimony general, [and] or future the court reasoned that due to testimony of Elli- co-defendants Kelvin L. Ellison’s investigation, law enforcement son and Tiffany ... directly likely already [as] Stewart most Akridge’s knew of rela- derived illegal as a result tionship search.” to Ellison. The court was further motion, J.A. at support 118. In persuaded by the timing of Ellison’s and Akridge argued that “the witnesses were pleas Stewart’s vis-a-vis the discovered as the the illegal direct result of search and the magistrate’s recommenda- search of apartment[;][t]he presence grant tion to Akridge’s suppression initial was immaterial.” Id. terrupted, length its that the court found Although motion. in 1054. weighed factors at 98 S.Ct. of the Ceccolini some exclusion, as to Stew- particularly favor Ceccolini, it is now clear Based on unknown to previously she was art since exclusionary rule does not invari “that the the court determined investigators, testimony of a witness whose ably bar the against weighed factors majority of the to the authorities as identity is revealed sup- balancing the cost of After exclusion. search.” the result of an United effect of the deterrence against pression (2d Reyes, exclusion, Akridge’s mo- court denied Cir.1998). Instead, dependent exclusion is prior sup- scope of its tion to extend attenuation between upon degree ruling. pression testimony. Re search and pri relied the district court Although principle the attenuation an lying upon doctrine, discovery the inevitable marily on States, in Nardone v. nounced United court’s Ceccol address the district we first (1939), 84 L.Ed. 307 U.S. 60 S.Ct. it more we find that analysis because ini Sun, Wong expounded upon action. Be to the instant clearly applies a number of con weighed Court Ceccolini fac that the we determine Ceccolini cause (1) siderations, “the testimo including as to both exclusion weigh against tors act of her given by the witness was an ny Ellison, affirm the district way or even free will no coerced own that basis and do ruling on court’s (2) authority,” “substan by official induced court’s merits of the district reach the elapsed of time between the periods tial discovery” determination. “inevitable and the initial time of the ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍... and the witness between contact with D. Ceccolini trial,” at the latter and Sun, indi- Supreme Court Wong In (3) her identity of the witness and underlying the ex- policies “the cated that the defendant “were well relationship with any logical clusionary rule invite [do not] investigating the case.” known to those verbal ev- physical between distinction 1054. at 98 S.Ct. idence.” ultimately “ap concluded that The Court concept the Court addressed in this exclusionary rule plication of the evi- in the context of verbal of attenuation de slightest have the situation could not dence, foregoing ultimately rejecting the 98 S.Ct. 1054. effect.” Id. terrent Wong In so do- Sun. pronouncement opinions published find no We “the issue [of reasoned that ing, the Court in the con Ceccolini applying this Circuit on the basis cannot be decided attenuation] exclusionary determinations relat text of alone, sense but logical causation Therefore, we testimony.5 ing to witness includes other elements necessarily the relevant by setting forth begin first at 98 S.Ct. well.” analysis. in consideration our rejected factors for Thus, expressly the Court 1054. surveying and reviewing Ceccolini unin- After that “if the road were the conclusion Circuit, co-defendant witness ing that the faсt that the albeit only one case in this 5. We find on opinion, applying cooperation with authorities unpublished Ceccolini "initiated his an initiative, suppression determination days the context of after the ar- several his own testimony. respect See United to witness willing- with independent rest” demonstrated Millis, U.S.App. 89 F.3d States v. dissipated taint of the testify that the ness to 19, 1996) (rejecting LEXIS Cir. original stop). exclusion, arguments for reason- defendant’s search, application illegal our circuits’ of its hold- not for the sister Stewart’s exis- ing, appropriate tence, find it to consider to relationship parties and the of the to following making our determina- factors another, one would not have been discover- tion: ed, second, if and even the identities and

(a) of free will exercised degree the parties the were known or would have witnesses; known, necessarily become not fol- does (b) illegality obtaining the role of the low that Ellison and would Stewart testimony; incriminating offered statements and trial (c) elapsed illegal testimony the time between against Akridge were it not for behavior, to coоperate, the decision and illegal May 2000 search. (d) trial;

the actual purpose flagrancy of the officials’ assertion, As to the Ak former misconduct. ridge’s arguments primarily focus on Stew Ellison, Akridge argues art. that unlike factors, foregoing Relevant to the Stewart not investigators known to might court consider: further the stated search, prior illegal although testify; willingness of witness to Ellison, circumstances; presence intervening Stewart lived with “that fact alone time, place, and ques- manner initial does demonstrates that she or her [sic] witness; tioning of the whether the wit- inevitably would have been dis defendant; ness was a himself whether the May covered but for the search on illegally-seized ques- evidence was used in 16-17, Appellant’s 2000.” Br. at witness; tioning the the time between the Akridge argues further for the “[b]ut initial illegal search and contact with the 2May relationship [Stewart’s] witness; investigators whether knew of Akridge may not have been discovered.” relationship, any, if between the wit- Appellant’s Br. at 25. prior ness and the defendant to the contentions, In addressing these we find search; and whether the conducted crucial the relating time line to events intending to find evi- surrounding 2000 search. Ac- dence implicating defendant.6 See cording 279-80, Appellant’s own recitation of facts, 1054; upon see also United v. arrival at the 824 Hughes, Arlington States (1st Cir.2002); 279 F.3d residence, 89-90 United Avenue Chattanooga police offi- McKinnon, 92 F.3d 247-48 cers Darrell Turner Anthony Sutton (4th Cir.1996); Schaefer, United States v. door, spoke knocked at the with Akridge, (3d Cir.1982); 691 F.2d United requested consent to search. In re- (2d Leonardi, States v. sponse request, to this Akridge announced Cir.1980). that he would speak first have to with mind, Ellison and Stewart With this framework we turn because their names the parties’ contentions. were on the apartment Akridge lease. then went apartment inside the and asked Identity E. of the Parties Ellison and step outside to Akridge appears speak to make two with primary officers. and Ellison first, contentions on appeal: that were it apparently proceeded yard to the outside 6. This list of every factors is neither exclusive nor to relevant situation. exhaustive, clearly may and not all factors be officers, gument ignores while Stewart the fact that the speak with the identitiеs to doorway. Dur- apartment in the remained of Ellison and Stewart and their status as conversation, all three res- ing ensuing occupants apartment of the whose consent consent to search the gave idents verbal search, prior was needed to were made However, such consent was apartment. police prior any known to the officers to representations on false purportedly based illegality.7 Notwithstanding asserted by specific Turner that he had information fact parties specifically that the have not kilograms two of cocaine regarding addressed whether the witnesses’ identi- around residence and that “the Feds were ties, opposed to testimony, as their are the corner and ... had a search warrant.” separately suppressible, we find that the foregoing, on the it is clear that knowledge Based Government’s of the existence Akridge opened Ellison, the door at the moment Akridge, and and their occupant and identified himself as an roommates, relationship to one another as apartment and further identified his illegality arises from no and thus does not his roommates as Ellison implicate the exclusionary rule.8 identity relationship and a to Stewart established, independent Ellison were Testimony F. illegal Chattanooga police search. offi- actual legitimately responding Regarding

cers were to statements and tri- anonymous tip regarding drug origi- sales by al offered Ellison and Stew- Akridge’s nating apartment, art, Akridge appears appeal to contest on apartment’s is no that the there assertion during the statements made the course of i.e., occupants illegally were lured or otherwise events, separate three compelled apartment outside the to discuss interviews, preparation the issue of consent to search. affidavits to Ak- oppose Stewart’s used motion,9 ridge’s enlargement and the trial strenuously

Although Akridge argues by offered Ellison and Stewart. that his connection to Stewart and Ellison Akridge attempts The chain of causation have remained unknown were it not would search, subsequent illegal for the this ar- establish is that the 2000 search led ("Even reasoning knew of the link 98 S.Ct. 1054 in situations where Stewart, Ellison, Akridge only applicable, between exclusionary plainly rule is we ignores via the the dissent adopt 'per “but have declined to se or for” gone lengths timeline which to set any rule’ that would make inadmissible evi- supra, prior dence, noted forth. As tangible whether or live-witness testi- entry, Akridge need- informed officers he mony, light through which somehow came to roommates, ed to talk to his art, Ellison and Stew- began a chain of causation that with an step and asked them to outside. At this arrest.”). events, point sequence in the even if offi- discovery parties’ As to the relation- away had walked from the scene without cers dealers, ship op- to one another as illegally entering apartment, they would roommates, posed merely information have known of Stewart and Ellison and would light only through came to the evidence they living together have known that were all apartment, found at the but also from state- apartment drugs allegedly in an from which parties during questioning ments made being were sold. Akridge's objections and at trial. We address assuming illegality, Akridge's 8. Even some statements these infra. argument "but for” fаils. Under affidavits set forth Ellison’s and Stew illegality 9. These the mere fact that an is a "but for” plea agree entering into disputed testimony art’s reasons for cause of is insufficient to ments. warrant exclusion. See 628 during

to the interviews which cer- respect purpose With to the flagran- and made, resulting tain statements were in cy misconduct, police Akridge as- arrests, leading parties’ to Ellison’s purpose May serts that the sole 2 plea agreements, and Stewart’s which in search drugs. was to uncover evidence of required coop- turn Ellison’s and Stewart’s Certainly, a clear illegali- intent to uncover investigations prose- eration in future ty though illegal means would seem to cutions,10 in resulting thus Ellison and weigh However, in suppression. favor of prosecution testifying Stewart for the at police we note that the specifical- were not Akridge’s trial. ly in particular evidence Akridge’s general argument is that ev- case, sought i.e., suppressed to be ery May statement made after the testimony.12 Instead, witness officers search is tainted and thus sup- should be responding were to a complaint about pressed. further Akridge argues that the trafficking from Akridge’s apartment. “do testimony affidavits not reflect Moreover, while the case for suppression respective what position of each wit- is any tangible clearer for evidence seized ness would have been the instant before search, during the the Supreme Court has illegal May Appellant’s search.” Re- that instructed “since the cost of excluding ply Akridge at 6. therefore reasons that testimony great- live-witness often will be the Government cannot establish that the er, closer, more direct link between the incriminating information about illegality and testimony that kind of is contained the affidavits and Ceccolini, required.” would have been inevitably discovered. S.Ct. 1054. above, As to the factors set forth we find any illegal As to the role that fruits from most dispositive degree of free will May played 2000 search in obtaining by exercised Ellison and as well Stewart’s and testimony, we find temporal as the attenuation between the beyond dispute search, that the threat May prose- the June questioning, and the subsequent agreements played cution some plea and trial rоle their tes- decision to timony.11 June, These factors are discussed fur- submit questioning as well as ther herein. their ultimate decisions to plea enter into agreement plea part Nonetheless, Ellison's is of the rec- Akridge’s trial. appeal ord clearly on coopera- contains a approximately eight note that months tran- provision. plea agreement tion spired Stewart’s entry between the search and actual not joint appendix, included in the but plea Stewart’s and five months between the dispute Government does plea. assertion search and Ellison’s pursuant plea, to her Stewart was obli- gated provide testimony against trial Ak- analysis 12. As noted in might ridge. differ "where the search was by conducted specific purpose for the of discover 11. We do elapsed ing potential not find as critical the time witnesses.” original between trial and contact with the at 277 n. 98 S.Ct. 1054. The Court noted case, witnesses year in this for while a slightest that there was "not the evidence to elapsed between trial suggest shop [the entered officer] ... obligated Stewart and were Ellison finding tаngible with the intent of evidence part agreements their bearing assist in the gambling operation, on an illicit investigation Government’s prosecution any much suggestion less that he entered the Therefore, of others. entry as of the shop date of and searched with the finding intent of plea agreements, their Ellison and willing testify against respondent.” witness to essentially 279-80, were pleas bound their to offer Id. at 98 S.Ct. 1054. All during their interviews. handcuffed though Govern- Even agreements. rights, a waiver of parties signed were three that no references asserts ment weapons evidence re- to the admitted to and during questioning various made asser- May incidents, ultimately this and were arrest- during lated seized light significance some tion loses ed. were co- and Ellison Stewart

fact that emphasizes that it was not until Akridge into defendants, had been taken after the arrest that Ellison made knew, if even parties and both custody, plead guilty “final decision” to and “turn during ques- not referenced evidence was However, in his life the affidavit around.” facing prosecution. tioning, they that were suppression at the second hear- presented Nоnetheless, foregoing circum- despite the that the reason for his ing, Ellison states attenuation, stances, temporal find that facing exposure that he was decision was of free will exercised degree as the as well sentencing a career crimi- to enhanced Stewart, favor of weigh in by Ellison and 924(e) § due to the nal under 18 U.S.C. court’s decision affirming the district that January charge 1999 firearms and motion. Akridge’s suppression deny major factor” in his charge this was “a plea. Ellison also ex- decision to enter 1. Ellison had been a plained poor that he knew he interview, on the June Regarding up getting caught role model for his son Arlington returned to day that officers his and wanted to serve selling drugs question further residence to Avenue good example [his] for son.” time to “be a in- initially Akridge and Ellison Stewart. further reflects that Ellison’s affidavit home, at but was not that Stewart dicated he Ellison knew that deciding cooperate, inside the eventually went residence Akridge’s and Stew- would have to disclose that Affidavits indicate summon Stewart. guns drugs, but art’s involvement with apart- gathering outside was crowd cooperate, he hаving made the decision be ment, thought would the officers so way.” it half Based on ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍“could not do at the questioning safer to conduct decision, favorably for Ak- testified Ellison Akridge, requested station and that police hearing of- suppression at the but ridge Ellison, ques- for all come in and Stewart at testimony against Akridge trial. fered Agent by Akridge, As recounted tioning. Ellison to Akridge “invited Malone relationship Ellison’s direct Although station to police at the meet officers with been revealed Akridge may not have with apart- 2 search of their May discuss , that Elli- undisputed until it is three co- Stewart’s arrest. The ment and aas career facing prosecution son crack co- selling admitted to operated and for appeared Ellison offender. While Br. at marijuana.” Appellant’s caine and behest, at the Government’s questioning voluntarily and without coer- 10. he did so thereafter, Stewart, It several months cion.13 was Akridge, police procedure, Per October, a plea into that Ellison entered during handcuffed trans- were and Ellison required station, agreement agreement, were not but port to the station, court, clear none the officers made lice by the Though, as noted district picked up and The parties "were were under arrest. hand- and Stewart Ellison enforcement, station, upon rather than by law interviewed at the cuffs were removed own,” wholly J.A. coming rights on their forward a waiver of executed arrival all three Ellison, while issuing and confessions. prior to statements po- during transport to the were handcuffed cooperation investiga- with future that such perpetually exclusion would in Ellison’s trial tions and resulted testi- testifying disable a witness from about mony Abridge. against facts, relevant regardless and material testimony of how unrelated such might the foregoing sup We find purpose originally illegal be to the of the ports coopera the conclusion that Ellison’s search or the evidence discovered there testimony tion and trial resulted from an by. disqualify Rules which bnowledge will, exercise of Ellison’s free and was the able witnesses from testifying at trial “product of detached reflection and a de are, in the word of Professor McCor- Ceccolini, cooperative.” sire to be 435 micb, “seriоus obstructions to the ascer 277, Admittedly, U.S. at 98 S.Ct. 1054. accordingly, tainment of truth” “[f]or a not as clear a as in is case century legal the course of evolution has putative which the witness was not a been in the direction sweeping away defendant, Abridge asserts that due to McCormicb, these obstructions.” C. impending prosecutions, their Ellison and * (1954). § Law of Evidence 71 [* *] Stewart were faced with a Hobson’s choice reasons, many For of these same fairly regarded product that cannot be as a Court has also held admissible trial However, of their free wills. Ceccolini testimony of a witness identity whose instructs: was by disclosed the defendant’s state only Another factor which is rele- given ment inadequate after Miranda in determining vant the usefulness of Tucker, warnings. Michigan v. exclusionary in particular rule a con- 433, 450-451, 94 41 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d text, also seems us to but differentiate (1974). 182 testimony of all live witnesses even putative 277-78, from the defendants exclusion 98 S.Ct. evidence, documentary typical 1054.14 Padilla, Emphasizing gained by the benefit ed States v. 960 F.2d 863 n. 7 Ellison, i.e., reduced sentences ex- Cir.1992), grounds, rev’d on other 508 change cooperation, for their their stаtus U.S. 123 L.Ed.2d 635 co-defendants, any discounts dissent (1993) ("This adopted per court has never possibility that the witnesses could en- limiting se ‘good rule Ceccolini to citizen' plea agreements testimony tered and offered testify witnesses who 'out of a sense of civic against Abridge of their own free will. How- "); Leonardi, duty’ United States v. 623 F.2d ever, espoused by under the rationale (2d Cir.1980) (deeming admissible dissent, any imagine it is difficult to scenario testimony coconspirator "confronted with under which a co-defendant witness would be the fruits of the search at the time his permitted testify where co-defendant's solicited[,]” cooperation though was first wit- identity initially by discovered facing jail ness was substantial time for an- position search. The dissent's would invari- crime, pursuant other testified to a bar- ably preclude of all such co- gain, by and viewed likely testifying court as plea agree- defendants that have entered self-interest); Brookins, out of United States v. ments, merely by virtue of the benefit received (5th Cir.1980) 614 F.2d (testimony and the witnesses' status as co-defendants. partially grant induced immunity); Notably, precise expressly this is the outcome Stevens, United States v. 1229- Ceccolini, i.e., rejected by perpetual dis- (10th Cir.1979) (deeming admissible testi- witnesses, co-defendants, ablement of even mony coconspirator pursu- from who testified 'Post-Ceccolini, testifying. courts have plea bargain, reasoning ant to that witness consistently rejected the notion that Ceccolini disinterested, “was entitled to raise applies the defense of the ille- only non-party, to the gality wiretaps inadmissibility civic minded and the ap- witness and have instead plied the resulting case of evidence to co-defendants’ therefrom un- in the case him[,] der E.g., against various factual circumstances. Unit- testify; he [b]ut offered to his 2. Stewart light foregoing, on the Based (1) prior knowledge of the Government’s Stewart, Akridge argues As to (2) background;15 criminal Ellison and his relationship if a had “[e]ven been lapse between the six week discovered, Stewart would have had no questioning and ar- search and Ak testimony against incentive to offer (3) rest; nearly four month the additional ridge stemming absent the arrest from the Ellison’s de- lapse between the arrest and Appellant’s 2 search.” Br. at 25-26. (4) cooperate; Ellison’s stated cision illogi further submits that is “[i]t his cited

willingness testify, particularly to in cal to assume that was an exercise his life deciding reasons for to turn plead [Stewart] free will that caused (5) around; significant impact and guilty cooperate and when all evidence eligi- and impending prosecution against suppressed.” could have been her for a career offender enhancement bility at Appellant’s oppo Br. 18. We draw January charges, 1999 we relating to the site conclusion. illegal find that the connection between Ellison, voluntarily As with re- Stewart sufficiently search and the questioning. turned to the station for No- v. Leonar attenuated. See United States tably, guilty her plea Stewart entered on (2d Cir.1980) (finding it 623 F.2d 746 di 5, 2001, January magistrate rec- after likely cooper that the witness’ decision to grant Akridge’s ommended that the court strong possibility of ate was based on the suppress physical motion to all evidence time in relation to commit jail substantial seized, statement, Akridge’s in well as on ting separate a crime from that at issue affi- relation to the 2000 search. Via determination, making we appeal). davit averred that she knew she Sun, Wong Wong in which find instructive the firearms attempt suppress could deemed due to lack Sun’s arrest was 2,May on but did not wish to seized 2000 grounds. probable cause or reasonable cooperate do due to a desire to and tell so Nonetheless, regarded this ante the Court Despite potentially favorable the truth. evidentiary illegality cedent be no still decided to suppression ruling, Stewart had been consequence, Wong because Sun challenging instead of guilty enter a recogni his own arraigned, released on against the evidence her. Had Stewart’s zance, voluntarily and had returned sever solely prosecu- motivation been to avoid days interrogation, during for al later tion, suppres- waited for a she could have which he made the contested statement. Instead, her ruling. sion Stewart entered The determined that based on the Court challenging admissibility plea without the ar foregoing, “the connection between against evidence her. statement had ‘become so rest ” dissipate the taint.’ attenuated as earlier statements made on As tо the Sun, 491, 407 Wong 19, Akridge 83 S.Ct. note that unlike we Nardone, Ellison, previously at 60 (quoting U.S. Stewart had been 266). the events about custody relation to S.Ct. investigation part under decision dealers. Ellison was statement declared this was in life-style prosecuted in connection change and about to be motivated a desire 'to his "). prior stay with the 1999 search. was out of trouble.’ testimony Agent and the affidavit offender receiving he only Elli- Malone reflects that had been 15. We also find it of note son, already updates Akridge’s Akridge, were on criminal activities. but also known questioned. which being she was Howev came light through a chain of causa- er, neither Stewart nor Ellison were “con tion that began with arrest.” tinuously questioned by detained United States v. 435 U.S. police” giving until their statements mere 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978). illegality. Rather, hours after the United States v. context, in this Ienco, Cir.1999).16 stated that penalties upon “[t]he visited Instead, after her in May, Government, initial arrest and in turn upon voluntarily Stewart was released public, because its officers have violated questioned six weeks later June. As with the law must bear some relation to the Ellison, Sun, Wong we find purposes instructive which law is to serve.” Id., which the Court determined that a matter 98 S.Ct. 1054. days purge was sufficient to the taint of Harris, 14, 17, New York v. illegality, and conclude that the con (1990). S.Ct. 109 L.Ed.2d 13 areWe nection between the search and also mindful of the Court’s admonition that subsequent Stewart’s statements was “so exclusionary “[t]he should rule be invoked as to dissipate attenuated the taint.” greater with reluctance where the claim is

In ruling, so we are mindful of the Su- based on a relationship causal between a preme repeated Court’s admonition that constitutional violation and the discovery exclusionary rule; the not a per is se rule of a five witness than when a similar claim rather, applied the rule is to be only is advanced to support suppression of an those instances where exclusion would re- object.” inanimate sult in appropriate the deterrent effect. 275, case, 98 S.Ct. 1054. In this we deter- adopt ‘per

“[W]e declined to se or mine that the statements and trial testimo- “but for” rule’ ny that would make inadmis- of Ellison and Stewart were procured evidence, sible any tangible whether through or sufficiently means distinguishable testimony, live-witness which somehоw from the as purged search to be Ienco, Citing Padilla, 16. United 182 F.3d 517 United States v. 960 F.2d 854 (7th Cir.1999), posits the dissent that “other Cir.1992), grounds, rev’don ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍other 508 U.S. unflinchingly rejected circuits have major the (1993), 123 L.Ed.2d 635 also However, ity's position.” lenco does not cited the repudiating dissent as our free holding stand in contradiction to our and is analysis, will similarly distinguishable. In clearly distinguishable, in that the contested Padilla, the discovery drugs ques- and the witness' statements "were made at 4:15 a.m. tioning testifying party virtually "were custody after he had questioned been in events,” simultaneous “the identities of the police at the station for almost eleven hours.” defendants would not have been known with- Ienco, 182 F.3d at The witness was not out subsequent the seizure and questioning,” "Mirandized,” attorney nor he have did an and there was "no indication that the infor- And, present during questioning. as stressed mant would have come forward of his own court, by that "subsequent the confession and Padilla, accord.” 960 F.2d at 863. As noted trial testimony Judge were made after Duff supra, plea agreements the here were entered denied suppress.” the motion Id. Faced to search, months after the illegal the existence with what the characterized court as “the and identities of Stewart and Ellison were choice against between testifying lenco ... or search, prior made known going to incriminating trial where tainted and completely record is any devoid of evi- him, evidence against would be used Iovine justify dence to Here, supposition the dissent’s testify.” chose to parties Id. sub waivers, mitted affidavits were questioning executed under threat executing after pleas entered agreements. revocation of the illegality, the initial well-after and did potentially so in the of a face favor suppression able ruling. (1978). Sun, analy- L.Ed.2d 268 After Wong taint. See primary sis, disagree. I 487-88, must 88 S.Ct. 407. Any of the “attenuation” doc- discussion III. CONCLUSION begin analysis must with an of Cec- trine AFFIRM foregoing, we on the Based FBI In colini itself. the district court. judgment of gambling opera- investigating suspected The defendant’s flower tions New York. MOORE, dissenting. Judge, Circuit places under surveil- shop was one of the ended, ap- year after surveillance police officers lance. One On Biro, officer, spent Ronald police where the defen- a local apartment an proаched talking with his friend living together casually his break Akridge was Stephen dant at the Hennessey, working Lois who was Tiffany Ellison and Stewart. with Kevin conversation, During Biro flatly repeatedly shop. lied police The lying on the drawer picked up envelope him let them persuade Akridge to that it rendering register of the cash and discovered apartment, search money policy slips. Without unconstitutional. contained undisputedly seen, Hennessey what he had he signifi- telling seized envelope belonged. her to whom the marijuana, of crack and asked quantities cant belonged Hennessey explained as several firearms. On well defendant, Ellison, Stewart, Ralph Ceccolini. Biro men- were detective, later, local who week on tioned this to another charged. One arrested 27, 2000, along a it to the FBI. Four months plea passed entered into Stewart later, Hennessey at the FBI interviewed government. the agreement with information re- the her home and asked for suppress moved to and Ellison both Ceccolini; FBI did not men- the pending, garding their motion was search. While at the the earlier incident with Biro however, plea agree- into a tion Ellison entered study- Hennessey, who was shop. in flower government the October ment with in.college, eager was ing police issue and science waiving suppression FBI the events related to the litigate help. it on his own. She leaving Akridge to 22, 2001, during her visit with the dis- that had occurred Eventually, January on denied before of Biro. When Ceccolini physical fruits trict court ordered anything he knew about phys- grand jury this that suppressed. Without the search admissible, government any gambling operations, being directly ical evidence in result- Hennessey testify Ceccolini’s to had used Ellison prosecution in the question The indirectly, through ing perjury. trial for existence establish its testimony Hennessey’s case was whether testimony. the basis of their testimo- On admissible, fact that it was despite the was Akridge was convicted. ny, from an though remotely, derived clearly, that Ellison’s majority The concludes improper illegal search—Biro’s admittedly admissible testimony was and Stewart’s with and discussion envelope seizure of the 'fact that it Akridge, spite of the against Hennessey. search. It illegal fruit of the was the that Hennes- Court held Supreme The testimony their was sufficient- argues sufficiently at- sey’s was illegal later from the ly “attenuated” illegal search as the initial fruit-of- tenuated from exception to the to fall within of five consid- on the basis to be admissible doctrine under United the-poisonous-tree to the Court significant Most erations. Hennessey’s was the fact that decision to Consideration of the Ceccolini factors (and testify) later police talk to the was only this case can lead one conclusion— any leverage police not due to had over that the testimonial evidence in this case illegal by her virtue of the search. The factor, must be suppressed. The first illegality that “the Court stressed which will, issue of free is the fatal to most discovery very led to the of the witness prosecution’s majority argues case. The play any meaningful part often will not Stewart’s willingness testify.” the witness’ Id. at a product any governmental coer- 277, 98 1054. This was true in S.Ct. Hen- inducement, or cion but was a product case; nessey’s testimony, her the Court completely their own volition. I disagree. held, way was “in no coerced or even in just Ellison and Stewart had been found by authority duced official as a result of large with quantities drugs and several discovery policy slips.” Biro’s Id. at firearms; statutory sentencing ceiling empha 98 S.Ct. 1054. The Court also for the charges their initial indictments sized, degree, to a lesser four other fac prison. was life in The government of- First, gambling slips tors. were not fered Ellison following and Stewart Second, questioning Hennessey. used in options in the form of a bargain: passed four months between the Testify against Akridge and receive a any subsequent search and contact with sentence, lighter or litigate suppres- Hennessey, year passed and over a be sion significantly issue and risk a increased tween the latter and Ceccolini’s trial. prison sentence. Ellison and Stewart chose Third, the Hennessey’s knew re Although the former. impossible lationship with Ceccolini before the just discern from the record how much of lastly, search. And there was no evidence lighter sentence Ellison and Stewart re- that Biro conducted search in ceived virtue cooperation, of their it is attempt incriminating to find evidence. cleаr that their significant- sentences were McKinnon, See United States v. factors),ly reduced.1 It Cir.1996) impossible therefore seems (using these say to denied, that Ellison and “in Stewart were rt. 519 117 U.S. S.Ct. ce 784, 136 (1997); way no by L.Ed.2d coerced or even induced 726 United States official Ienco, (7th Cir.1999) authority 182 F.3d as a illegal result of [the (same). ignores search].”2 Such a statement the plea agreements, 1. Under their Stewart re- Because Stewart was unknown as a sus- a pected ceived 12-month sentence police while Ellison illegal criminal to the the until (who had a more history extensive criminal charges against all of the her were convicted was of several additional based on illegal evidence discovered in the charges) received a although 115-month sentence. In police search. And the had found contrast, Akridge received a marijuana 660-month sen- firearms and in another of Elli- earlier, rough- tence. Given the year fact that had son’s residences over a Ellison ly the alleged charged same role in the was also offenses as with several additional illegal Ellison and and received a crimes as a sentence result of the search. As is below, (and fifty explained times it more severe than Stewart is therefore clear that five the Ellison, (if illegal coerced) times more severe than itself induced not who had roughly both Ellison history Akridge), entering plea and Stewart into a same criminal agreement beyond dispute government. it with the seems that Ellison and Stewart significant both a received reduction majority emphasizes While the that the bare prison by entering plea in arrange- time into a identities of Stewart and Ellison became government. ment with the police known to the before the unlawful part government.3 on the in ment or coercion usually exchanged mutual consideration receive States v. Ramirez- the defendants Cf United plea agreements: . Sandoval, and, return, they testi- in Cir. lesser sentences 1989) prosecution. fy (noting key inquiry for that “witnesses would have come whether the Somehow, refuses to ac- majority forward of their own volition to inform facts, to pointing basic knowledge these officials”). In the witness was a These Ceccolini affidavits. and Stewart’s citizen, defen putative civiс-minded “not and Stewart’s state that Ellison’s affidavits dant,” Akridge were testify against decisions was police who studied science and turn their they wanted to

voluntary, that course, gov The eager help government. truth. Of around and tell the lives for in these affidavits— ernment offered no benefit return gentle irony there is presumably testimony, and threatened no detri namely government that her sign these Ellison and Stewart if it. Because required provide ment she failed to revoking their threat of way under “in coerced or affidavits her was no that assuming But even agreements. plea authority as a by even induced official cooperating were Ellison and Stewart search],” id. at result of [the truth, to tell the they wished part because subsequent her S.Ct. they only wished to tell

it is clear that contrast, considered attenuated. of the incrimina- avoid the effects truth to defendants, putative witnesses here were argues No one ting search. (if coerced) testify clearly induced into Ellison and thesis that implausible threat of addi ing under the Damocles-like they told the truth had never would have case) (or decades, in Ellison’s years tionаl been found prison. say To that these defendants search. meaning “freely” strip is to all the acted Supreme Court has attached course, deci- Ellison’s and Stewart’s

Of government agents phrase. Short “voluntary” in the plea bargain was sion to testify by forcing Stewart and Ellison bargain they did choose to sense that violence, I think of can physical threats of But alternatives. over their other less free no situation that would involve “voluntary” their decision does not make I Accordingly, find will than the one here. under meaning within that other circuits unsurprising wit- must differentiate between which we majority’s posit unflinchingly rejected the of their own volition nesses who testified ion.4 that of induce- and those testified because potential against testifying a codefendant place, the difference between search took Akridge’s entirely product of the knowing identity wholly roommates a the been so being charge them with crimes illegal position able to advocated here behavior. The is, least, say rule, resulting years prison to the in in per to a se but instead does not amount significant. of a recognition whеn the free will a that by obviously affected the been so witness has position majority that the advo-

3. The claims illegal in an discovery of adverse evidence per to a se rule that cated here would lead extremely strong show- take it will an progeny. rejected by Ceccolini its was ing other factors to shift the balance in the take account of the This assertion fails to towards attenuation. particular that make this case circumstances clearly illegality one in which the taint of so bar, the the case at In a case similar to by In no case cited has not been attenuated. putative a defen- Circuit held that Seventh has been held to majority where the taint the agreement decision to enter into government's case dant's has the be attenuated I Although illegal believe this consideration so the initial search with Ellison and in the defendant that the only tilts favor of testifying that he refrained longer applica- “attenuation” doctrine is no asking leading questions them about ble, the other considerations of Ceccolini Ceccolini, Finally, it. in Biro entered the First, support suppression. factors also in shop simply flower to talk with his friend Ceccolini, identity Hennessey “both the and inadvertently something noticed he relationship with her the [defendant] never should have Although seen. the investigating were well known to those the unconstitutional, search was it was not illegal case” before the search. intentionally done to find evidence of crim- Here, 98 S.Ct. 1054. inal wrongdoing; there was “not the opposite; police may was the while the slightest suggest evidence to that Biro en- have known about Ellison and tered shop picked up envelope or separately, nothing ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍suggested even that tangible with the intent of finding evidence police the two were linked until the found on bearing gambling an illicit operation.” them together search —and 279-80, case, Id. at 98 S.Ct. 1054. In this police did not even know Stewart exist- designed search was to obtain evidence Second, ed all. against point defendant —a so obvious never the earlier search in mentioned their that government does not bother subsequent interview with Hennessey and dispute it. illegally never referred to the seized evi- cоnclusion, all of dence. Id. at 98 S.Ct. 1054 the Ceccolini factors (noting investigator point “did not specifically suppression toward of Ellison’s and involving testimony. refer to the incident Officer Stewart’s With con- Akridge’s Biro”). Here, viction, prosecution Officer Cordell Malone successfully has acknowledge brought up seems to that he managed to escape with the fruits of its required against testify just him to his code- who has been arrested with hundreds of only op fendant was not "free” because pounds drugs his he driving.” the car "testifying against tions were codefen [his Id. at 862. lighter going dant] for a sentence or to trial majority attempts While the distinguish incriminating where tainted and evidence by asserting Padilla and timing lenco that the against used would be him.” United cooperation key of the witnesses’ deter- Ienco, (7th Cir.1999). will, This mining point their free any it cannot choice, stressed, could not be a free the court similar case where the of cocon- appear as "his actions dictated his own spirators prosecution threat under based precarious legal situation circumstance primarily exclusively or on evidenсe seized in forged by arrest and search.” Id. search has been held to be suffi- Padilla, Similarly, ciently in United States v. attenuated. That Stewart and Ellison (9th Cir.1992), F.2d 854 quickly prosecutorial rev'd on other surrendered more grounds, 508 pressure U.S. cognates than their in Padilla and (1993), Arciniega L.Ed.2d 635 Luis had been lenco does not serve demonstrate their free will, illegally stopped and found with perhaps hundreds of but clearly even more their lack pounds Arciniega of cocaine in his car. con- of it. commentator, fessed that he was a mule and led noting One practice enterprise, to the heads of criminal generally, the federal courts remarked that trial, including "appear[s] Xavier Padilla. At Padilla's when it that the witness has been government argued Arciniega’s pressured testi- pressure and that the is a conse- mony sufficiently quence prior attenuated from the Fourth Amendment viola- illegal stop. flatly rejected The finding Ninth Circuit ... a unlikely tion of attenuation is government's LaFave, argument Arciniega justified.” Wayne be R. 5 Search will, was testifying recogniz- of his own free And A Treatise On The Seizure: Fourth ing heavy weight (3d ed.1996). "the upon § a man’s shoulders Amendment 11.4 What the government search. poisonous directly of its

could not admit because violations, it has

flagrant constitutional through respect- the back door. I

slipped

fully dissent. America,

UNITED STATES of

Plaintiff-Appellee, RODRIGUEZ-SUAZO,

Alfredo

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-2590. Appeals,

United States Court of

Sixth Circuit.

Argued July 2003.

Decided and Filed Oct.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Stephen D. Akridge

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Oct 2, 2003

Citation: 346 F.3d 618

Docket Number: 01-6294

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.