USA V. MICAH BRUNO, No. 19-10395 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 15 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-10395 D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00214-KJD-VCF-1 v. MICAH MECKIEL BRUNO, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2021** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: CLIFTON, NGUYEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Micah Bruno appeals from his criminal conviction for uttering counterfeit obligations or securities. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Normally, we review the denial of a suppression motion de novo and the underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Dixon, 984 F.3d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 2020). But where “the defendant attempts to raise new theories on appeal in support of a motion to suppress,” he must show “good cause for failing to present in his pre-trial motion the new theory for suppression he raises in [the] appeal.” United States v. Guerrero, 921 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1300 (2020); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). Here, like the Guerrero defendant, Bruno changed his argument on appeal. In the district court, he disputed the government’s factual representations supporting the search of his apartment. On appeal, he no longer argues that the search warrant application contained factual inaccuracies or material omissions. Rather, he argues that the facts were insufficient to establish probable cause. Because Bruno fails to explain why he has good cause for not raising this argument earlier, we deem it waived. See Guerrero, 921 F.3d at 898. AFFIRMED. 2

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.