|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL A. PAGE, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 05-00716—David A. Katz, District Judge.
Submitted: March 17, 2008
Decided and Filed: April 3, 2008
Before: MARTIN, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Michael A. Page pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to import cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and 963. The district court sentenced him to 204 months, within the recommended guidelines range of 168- 210 months’ incarceration. Page now appeals his conviction, arguing that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G) by not informing him of, and making sure he understood, the nature of the charge to which he pled guilty. Because we find the district court adequately ensured that Page understood the nature of the charge to which he pled guilty, we AFFIRM Page’s conviction.
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID SIMPSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga.
No. 06-00021—Harry S. Mattice, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: February 5, 2008
Decided and Filed: April 3, 2008
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; and BATCHELDER and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
BOGGS, Chief Judge. David Simpson entered a conditional guilty plea to possession, with intent to distribute, of 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Simpson argues that the police officer had neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion of any illegal behavior that would justify stopping Simpson’s vehicle, and that the seizure and subsequent search therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. We agree with the district court that there was no constitutional violation, and we therefore affirm, but we do not rely on the district court’s overly broad interpretation of the Tennessee statute at issue.