US v. Jose Vanegas, No. 13-4455 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 10, 2014.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE DELORES VANEGAS, a/k/a Chivito, Defendant - Appellant. On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 14-5936) Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: May 19, 2015 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph R. Pope, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Riley v. California, 573 U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014). In United States v. Vanegas, 560 F. App’x 191 (4th Cir.) (No. 13-4455), vacated, Delores U.S. Vanegas’ , 135 S. Ct. 377 (2014), we affirmed Jose convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). After reviewing Vanegas’ appeal in light of Riley, we affirm. * In Riley, the Supreme Court held that a warrant generally required prior to a search of a cell phone. 134 S. Ct. 2493. cell messages phone incident retrieved Riley, This is true even when the cell phone is seized incident to arrest. his is Vanegas contends that the search of to from arrest the unconstitutional in light of Riley. and the phone’s use data of the text cards was The Government asserts that Vanegas waived his Fourth Amendment challenge by failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress. * In the prior appeal, Vanegas challenged the jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the firearm charge. We reinstate our prior opinion affirming his conviction. See Vanegas, 560 F. App’x at 192-94. 2 Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a motion to suppress be filed either before trial or by the deadline established by the district court. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C), 12(c)(1). If the defendant fails to timely file such waived a motion, he has his Fourth Amendment challenge unless the court finds “good cause” for the delay. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see United States v. Moore, 769 F.3d 264, 267–68 (4th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s determination that untimely motion to suppress was waived), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1463 (2015); United States v. Sweat, 573 F. App'x 292, 295 (4th relief Cir.) from (No. the 13-4703) denial of (noting an untimely that “we rarely suppression grant motion”), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 157 (2014). Vanegas trial. did not move to suppress evidence prior to his During the sentencing hearing, Vanegas asserted that his conviction was the result of an unconstitutional search. The district court responded that it had looked carefully at the evidence and did not find that any illegal evidence was presented during the trial. When Vanegas referenced his cell phone, that the court responded the wiretap evidence properly obtained and was authorized by a search warrant. Vanegas attempted to clarify that his challenge was to was When the search of the contents of his cell phone and data cards, the court noted his objection and continued with sentencing. 3 We conclude that Vanegas did not timely present his Fourth Amendment challenge to the district court and therefore waived this issue. 267–68. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)(C); Moore, 769 F.3d at Also, despite Vanegas’ assertion to the contrary, the district court’s statements at sentencing did not amount to a finding of good cause to excuse the waiver. Id. Having determined that Vanegas waived his Fourth Amendment challenge to the search of his cell phone and data cards, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley, 134 S. Ct. 2493, does not affect Accordingly, we affirm. the validity of Vanegas’ conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
