United States v. Thomas ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60271 Document: 00516646070 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 14, 2023
No. 22-60271 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jordan Reshard Thomas,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:20-CR-10-1
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jordan Thomas was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon in
violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after officers found a gun on him
during a traffic stop. After unsuccessfully moving to suppress the evidence
of the gun, Thomas pleaded guilty to the charge. The district court sentenced
Thomas to a within-Guidelines sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment and
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60271 Document: 00516646070 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2023
No. 22-60271
three years’ supervised release. The sole issue on appeal is whether the
district court erred in denying Thomas’s motion to suppress.
Thomas contends that the district court erred in denying his
suppression motion because the Government, in bad faith, failed to preserve
purportedly relevant evidence that it knew it had a duty to maintain. Thomas
argues that the Government’s actions violated both the doctrine of spoliation
and his due process rights and thus warranted sanctions. He asks us to reverse
the district court’s suppression ruling or, in the alternative, remand the
motion for rehearing with instructions that the district court draw adverse
inferences against the Government. Because we find no error, we AFFIRM.
* * *
In reviewing a motion-to-suppress ruling, we assess the district
court’s factual findings, including its bad-faith finding, for clear error and
questions of law de novo. United States v. Valadez, 267 F.3d 395, 397 (5th Cir.
2001); United States v. McNealy, 625 F.3d 858, 868–69 (5th Cir. 2010). The
decision whether to impose sanctions for spoliation is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. See Guzman v. Jones, 804 F.3d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 2015).
Thomas fails to show he is entitled to relief under the spoliation
doctrine. “We permit an adverse inference against the spoliator or sanctions
against the spoliator only upon a showing of bad faith or bad conduct.” Id. at
713 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v.
Glenn, 935 F.3d 313, 320 (5th Cir. 2019). Beyond his bare accusation, Thomas
fails to show that the unavailability of any evidence was because of intentional
misconduct instead of oversight, error, ineptitude, or carelessness, see Vick v.
Tex. Emp. Comm’n, 514 F.2d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1975), or that any items were
deliberately lost, altered, or destroyed for the purpose of hiding adverse
evidence or depriving him of its use. See Guzman, 804 F.3d at 713; United
States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 156 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court
2
Case: 22-60271 Document: 00516646070 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/14/2023
No. 22-60271
considered testimony on why the evidence was unavailable and found
credible the Government’s explanation that the evidence was due to either
administerial error or a misunderstanding. We defer to the district court’s
credibility finding. See United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir.
2005).
Thomas’s claim that his due process rights were violated is likewise
meritless. As with his spoliation claim, Thomas must establish that the
Government acted in bad faith in failing to preserve the evidence or to make
it available. See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57–58 (1988); California
v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488–89 (1984). Again, Thomas fails to satisfy this
bad-faith requirement. He has not alleged or shown that the Government
acted with “official animus” towards him or consciously sought to suppress
exculpatory evidence. Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 488. No bad faith is otherwise
apparent from the record. The Government’s actions at worst may be
described as negligent, which is insufficient to establish a due process
violation. See Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 58; Glenn, 935 F.3d at 320.
AFFIRMED.
3