Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Norvell Harris was convicted in the Western District of Louisiana on two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. He appealed both his convictions and sentence.
Harris challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and his request for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware. He also argued that the district court should have used an older version of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have produced a lower range and that it improperly applied the firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that Harris abandoned his suppression challenge because his briefing merely suggested possible grounds for relief and largely failed to address the district court’s reasoning.
The court also upheld the denial of a Franks hearing because Harris did not show clear error in the finding that an acknowledged error was neither deliberate nor made with reckless disregard for the truth. His Guidelines-version argument failed under controlling circuit precedent, and he did not establish clear error in the application of the § 2D1.1(b)(1) firearm enhancement.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant may abandon a suppression issue by inadequately briefing it and failing to confront the district court’s reasoning.
- An acknowledged error in a warrant-related statement does not justify a Franks hearing without a sufficient showing that it was deliberate or recklessly false.
- The court rejected both the request to use an older Guidelines version and the challenge to the firearm enhancement.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate briefing must directly identify legal error and engage with the trial court’s analysis; merely intimating possible arguments can forfeit review.
It also illustrates the demanding showing required to obtain a Franks hearing and the deferential clear-error review applied to factual determinations underlying sentencing enhancements.