United States v. Stanley Thomas Vorsteg , 134 F. App'x 419 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 14, 2005
No. 04-13429
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-14055 CR-DMM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STANLEY THOMAS VORSTEG,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(June 14, 2005)
Before DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and LAWSON*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
________________________
*Honorable Hugh Lawson, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia,
sitting by designation.
Appellant Stanley T. Vorsteg appeals his conviction of manufacturing or
possessing with intent to distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the district court erred in
affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to his
finding that the barn was not part of the curtilage; (2) whether the district court
erred in affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to
his findings that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and
Investigator Tyson did not mislead Judge Estrada; (3) whether the district court
erred in affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to
his finding that the investigatory information for which the search warrant was
based on was not stale; and (4) whether the district court erred in affirming the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in regard to his finding that the
Leon good faith exception was applicable.
“Rulings on motions to suppress evidence involve mixed questions of law
and fact. We review the factual findings of the district court for clear error and the
application of the law to those facts de novo.” United States v. Brundidge, 170
F.3d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999). Pertinent here, a court’s determination of
“[w]hat is curtilage is a question of fact.” United States v. Berrong, 712 F.2d
21370, 1374 (11th Cir. 1983). In addition, in reviewing the denial of a motion to
suppress, “this Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to the party
who prevailed below.” United States v. Alexander, 835 F.2d 1406, 1408 (11th Cir.
1988).
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit
of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s order denying Vorsteg’s motion to
suppress and Vorsteg’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
3
4