Summary
finding that defendant raised "an entirely new argument" that he did not make in either his motion or at the hearing and, from this, concluding that defendant "waived this issue by raising it, for the first time, in his objection"
Summary of this case from United States v. PearsonOpinion
Criminal File No. 09-172 (MJD/SRN).
December 13, 2010
LeeAnn K. Bell, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Matthew D. Forsgren and Ankoor Bagchi, Briggs Morgan, PA, Counsel for Defendant Winston Nguyen.
ORDER
The above-entitled matter also comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson dated October 13, 2010. [Docket No. 678] Defendant Winston Nguyen filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In his objections, Nguyen raises an entirely new argument regarding the propriety of the trash searches that formed one of the bases for the search warrant at issue. Nguyen did not make a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the trash searches. There is no indication that he raised this issue during the suppression hearing before the Magistrate Judge. The Court concludes that Defendant has waived this issue by raising it, for the first time, in his objection to the Report and Recommendation. Moreover, there is no evidence to indicate that the trash searches were, in fact, invalid. The Court further rejects Defendant's other objections.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson dated October 13, 2010.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson dated October 13, 2010 [Docket No. 678].
2. Defendant Winston Nguyen's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure [Docket No. 597] is DENIED.
Dated: December 13, 2010