[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 17, 2007
No. 06-16597 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00014-CR-ODE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL BEASLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 17, 2007)
Before CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and COHN,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable James I. Cohn, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Paul Beasley appeals his conviction on two counts of armed bank robbery
under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and two counts of use of a firearm during a
crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(A)(iii). He appeals on
the grounds that a search of his home was executed pursuant to an invalid search
warrant; that the district court erred in excluding evidence of an FBI press release
which contradicted the Government’s evidence at trial; and that Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 12.1 is unconstitutional. We affirm.
First, although we agree with Beasley that the search warrant in this case
was insufficient to establish probable cause to search his residence, we affirm the
denial of Beasley’s motion to suppress on the basis of the good faith exception to
an invalid warrant established in U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913 (1984).
Second, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision, on the
basis of a lack of foundation, to exclude an FBI agent’s testimony, during cross-
examination, about an FBI press release pertaining to a description of the get-away
car. The witness being examined did not write the press release, nor did he make
the statement contained within the press release. He testified that the press release
was a pro forma issuance from the Bureau, and though he was aware that a press
release was issued regarding Beasley, he never actually read the press release until
he was asked to do so by Beasley’s attorney.
2
We also reject, as meritless, Beasley’s argument that Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule
12.1 is unconstitutional.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Beasley also argues that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to prove that a
firearm was present during the armed robberies underlying two of the counts. Beasley concedes,
however, that our Circuit precedent in U.S. v. Hunt forecloses his argument. 187 F.3d 1269,
1271 (11th Cir. 1999)(“a § 924(c) conviction may be sustained by lay witness testimony that a
defendant carried or used a gun”). Beasley only seeks to argue it here in order to preserve the
issue for subsequent en banc or Supreme Court review. Therefore, though we generally consider
a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, we need not consider the
merits of this argument further. See Hunt, 187 F.3d at 1270.
3