TOBIAS VAN COOLEY, JR., PETITIONER,

v.

UNITED STATES.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Albury, 782 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2015)
  …nson’s observation inside of room 332 was lawful. See United States v. Folk, 754 F. 3d 905, 911 (11th Cir.2014) (noting that for the plain view doctrine to apply, the officer must view the object from a lawful vantage point), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1006, 190 L.Ed.2d 879 (2015); United States v. Ramos, 12 F. 3d 1019, 1023 (11th Cir.1994) (“[I]t is well-settled that a person does not forfeit Fourth Amendment protection merely because he is residing in a hotel room.”). We, therefore, assume for the…
• United States v. Hughes, 840 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2016)
  …ate question of discriminatoiy intent represents a finding of fact of the sort accorded great deference on appeal,” United States v. Folk, 754 F. 3d 905, 914 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1006, 190 L.Ed.2d 879 (2015). On this record, we can find no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that the government did not strike Juror Number 3 for discriminatory reasons. C. The Evidentiary Objections Hughes argues that the di…