USCA11 Case: 21-10735 Date Filed: 12/22/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 21-10735
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:18-cr-00089-JLB-NPM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM NOBLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 22, 2021)
Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Nobles, a counseled federal prisoner, appeals his conviction for one
count of possession of child pornography. His only challenge is to the district
USCA11 Case: 21-10735 Date Filed: 12/22/2021 Page: 2 of 4
court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a Network
Investigative Technique (“NIT”) warrant. Specifically, he argues that the district
court erred in finding, on the basis of our decision in United States v. Taylor,
935
F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2019), cert. denied,
140 S. Ct. 1548 (2020), that even though
the NIT warrant was invalid, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule,
articulated in United States v. Leon,
468 U.S. 897 (1984), applied where the
investigating officers’ conduct was objectively reasonable. The government,
arguing that we are bound to follow Taylor, has moved for summary affirmance and
to stay the briefing schedule.
Summary disposition is appropriate, in part, where “the position of one of the
parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question
as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1
Under the prior precedent rule, we are “bound to follow a prior panel’s holding
unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by an opinion
of the Supreme Court or of this Court sitting en banc.” United States v. Gillis,
938
F.3d 1181, 1198 (11th Cir. 2019).
In Taylor, we reviewed the denial of a motion to suppress based on the same
1
We are bound by cases decided by the former Fifth Circuit before October 1,
1981. Bonner v. City of Pritchard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
2
USCA11 Case: 21-10735 Date Filed: 12/22/2021 Page: 3 of 4
NIT warrant at issue in Nobles’s case, which was issued by a magistrate judge in the
Eastern District of Virginia. See Taylor, 935 F.3d at 1283–84. There, we agreed
with the defendant that the magistrate judge lacked the authority to issue a warrant
authorizing the use of the NIT software on computer users like Nobles who were
located outside of that district. Id. at 1287–88. Thus, we concluded that the warrant
was void ab initio and presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Id. Nonetheless, we held that the evidence obtained under the NIT warrant need not
be suppressed because the FBI agents who obtained the search warrant had acted in
good faith and without any intent to deceive the magistrate judge. Id. at 1291–93.
Summary affirmance is appropriate here because, in light of Taylor, the
government is clearly right as a matter of law.2 See id.; Gillis, 938 F.3d at 1198. The
search here was presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment based on
the void NIT warrant. But as Taylor establishes, the good-faith exception to the
warrant requirement applies to the NIT warrant. To the extent Nobles’s arguments
concerning the technology involved in NIT warrants go beyond the scope of what
we considered in Taylor, the prior precedent rule bars them nonetheless. See Gillis,
938 F.3d at 1198 (“[T]here is no exception to the rule where the prior panel failed to
2
We also note that, as Nobles does not raise any further challenges to the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress, he has abandoned any such issues on appeal. See Sapuppo v.
Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that an appellant
abandons a claim where he does not “plainly and prominently” raise it (quotation omitted)).
3
USCA11 Case: 21-10735 Date Filed: 12/22/2021 Page: 4 of 4
consider arguments raised before a later panel.”).
Accordingly, because the government’s position is “clearly right as a matter
of law,” we GRANT its motion for summary affirmance and DENY as moot its
motion to stay the briefing schedule. See Groendyke Transp.,
406 F.2d at 1162.
4
