Background
Law enforcement officers found large quantities of methamphetamine and evidence of drug trafficking after searching Andrew Bigbee’s motorhome and residences in Minnesota. During the search of the Elko residence, law enforcement seized Bigbee’s cell phone. Twenty-two months later, the government searched the cell phone and uncovered more evidence, including photographs of methamphetamine. A grand jury indicted Bigbee on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and three counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Bigbee moved to suppress the evidence and for judgment of acquittal, both of which were denied at trial.
The court’s reasoning
The appellate court reviewed the suppression motion for abuse of discretion because it was denied as untimely. The court found that Bigbee failed to address the district court’s conclusion that his motion was untimely on appeal. Because claims not raised in an appellant’s brief are deemed waived, the court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion. Regarding the motion for acquittal, the court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. The court found the government presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction on all counts, including thirty pounds of methamphetamine, hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, firearms, money counters, and digital scales.
Because claims not raised in an appellant’s brief are deemed waived, we affirm here.
Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008)
What it means going forward
Affirmance of conviction and denial of suppression and acquittal motions.