USA v. Holyfield et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TYRONE HAMPTON,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:22-cr-00084-JMK-MMS-2
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at are Mr. Hampton’s Motions to Suppress at Dockets 80,
107, 110, and 122. Mr. Hampton is a self-represented defendant. Docket 80 is the original
Motion to Suppress, Dockets 107, 110, and 122 are amended Motions to Suppress. 	The
motions were collectively referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble.
The Government responded in opposition at Dockets 92 and 110. Mr. Hampton lodged a
reply at Docket 100. 	Judge Scoble issued his Final Report and Recommendation at
Docket 126, in which he recommended that the motions be denied. Mr. Hampton filed an
objection the Final Report and Recommendation at Docket 132.
The matter now is before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That
statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
Case 3:22-cr-00084-VMK-MMS Document 158 Filed 04/21/23 Page 1 of 3

United States v. Hampton 	Case No. 3:22-cr-00084-JMK
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 2
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 	A court is to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”2 But as to those topics on which
no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves
accept as correct.”3
Mr. Hampton objects to the Final Report and Recommendation on two
grounds. 	First, 	Mr. 	Hampton 	asserts 	that 	the 	Final 	Report 	and 	Recommendation
overlooked or failed to consider his request for an evidentiary hearing at Docket 122.
Second, Mr. Hampton asserts the suppression analysis overlooked or misconceived that
“the investigator failed to disclose the fact that U.P.S./the shipper did not open the
package.” 	In 	support 	of 	these 	objections, 	Mr. 	Hampton 	relies 	on 	Alaska 	Court
Rules 42(e)(1), (k)(1)(A), and (k)(1)(C).
As a threshold matter, the rules cited by Mr. Hampton are the Alaska Rules
of Criminal Procedure, which govern criminal proceedings in Alaska state courts. These
rules do not apply to a federal criminal proceeding. 	In federal court, [a]n evidentiary
hearing only needs to be held when the movant (here, Mr. Hampton) alleges “facts with
sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
2 Id.
3 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”).
Case 3:22-cr-00084-VMK-MMS Document 158 Filed 04/21/23 Page 2 of 3

United States v. Hampton 	Case No. 3:22-cr-00084-JMK
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 3
contested issues of fact exist.”4 Put more concisely, a judge’s decision to hold an
evidentiary hearing is discretionary.5 A judge is required to look at the grounds raised, and
the facts presented by both sides. If the judge believes there are material, disputed facts,
then an evidentiary hearing must be held.6 The Court has reviewed the grounds raised by
Mr. Hampton in his motions and in his objection. The Court further reviewed the oral
arguments given on the motions on March 7, 2023, in front of Judge Scoble.7 The Court
finds that neither a general evidentiary nor a Franks hearing was necessary for this matter.8
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion(s) to
Suppress. The Court has reviewed the Final Report and Recommendation and agrees with
its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Final Report and Recommendation, and IT
IS ORDERED that the Motions to Suppress at Dockets 80, 107, 110, and 122 are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of April, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
4 United States v. Cook, 808 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v.
Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir. 2000)).
5 United States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 269 F.3d 945, 947 (9th Cir. 2001).
6 Howell, 231 F.3d at 620.
7 See Dockets 116 & 118. The Court reviewed the audio record of the arguments held in
Anchorage Courtroom 5 before Judge Scoble.
8 United States v. Norris, 942 F.3d 902, 909–10 (9th Cir. 2019) (articulating that “[t]o obtain
a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing that: (1) the affiant
officer intentionally or recklessly made false or misleading statements or omissions in support of
the warrant,” and (2) the false or misleading statement or omission was material, i.e., necessary to
finding probable cause.” (internal quotations omitted)). See also Docket 110 at 22–26; Docket 122
at 19–24.
Case 3:22-cr-00084-VMK-MMS Document 158 Filed 04/21/23 Page 3 of 3