Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-24-2003
USA v. Horne
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-2649
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Horne" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 625.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/625
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-2649
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTONIO L. HORNE, SR.,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
D.C. Crim. No. 00-cr-00274-1
District Judge: The Honorable W illiam W. Caldwell
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 11, 2003
Before: BARRY, ROSENN, Circuit Judges and POLLAK,* District Judge
(Opinion Filed: April 24, 2003)
OPINION
__________
*
The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge, United States Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Because we write primarily for the parties in this case, we will forego a recitation
of its facts. Suffice it to say, appellant Antonio Horne argues that the District Court’s
failure to suppress allegedly impermissibly obtained evidence against him warrants the
vacation of his conviction for violating the so-called “felon in possession” statute, 18
U.S.C. § 922(g). The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and
appellate jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We have carefully reviewed all of appellant’s arguments pertaining to how and
why the government wrongly obtained the evidence at issue and the ways in which the
District Court erred when it failed to suppress that evidence. We find no error. The
police had probable cause to arrest Horne based on suspicion of domestic assault and
driving under the influence. They read his Miranda rights to him, he acknowledged that
he understood them, and he then implicitly waived them. Additionally, he orally
consented and consented in writing to a search of his car. The District Court did not err
in finding that his consent was not coerced. Finally, his various due process claims are all
without merit. We will, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence for the
reasons substantially set forth in the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the
District Court.
2
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Maryanne Trump Barry
Circuit Judge