United States of America v. Cornelius Banks, also known as Gucci, Originally named Corneluis Banks

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2882
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Cornelius Banks, also known as Gucci, Originally named Corneluis Banks
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: April 8, 2024
Filed: August 22, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, MELLOY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cornelius Banks entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possessing
an unregistered machine gun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), reserving the right
to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The district court1 sentenced Banks
1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., then Chief Judge, now United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
to two years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $100 assessment.
Banks now appeals.
Law enforcement officers conducted a warrantless search of Banks’s
apartment, where they found a machine gun and other firearms. Banks filed a motion
to suppress, arguing that officers had not obtained his voluntary consent to enter and
search his apartment. United States v. Mendoza, 677 F.3d 822, 829 (8th Cir. 2012)
(“The police may, of course, search a person’s home with his or her consent,
provided the consent is voluntary.”).
The district court held an evidentiary hearing, where the government called
four officers who were at Banks’s apartment at the time of the entry and search. Each
officer testified that Banks gave them permission to search his apartment before they
entered. Banks, his live-in girlfriend, and a neighbor also testified. Banks said that
no one asked him for consent to search and that he did not give the officers his
consent. Banks’s girlfriend also denied ever being asked “for permission to go into
the house.” And Banks’s neighbor described seeing an officer who “kept trying to
force his way inside,” eventually “brush[ing] past” Banks and going “into the
[apartment].” After considering all of the evidence, the district court determined that
Banks voluntarily consented to the search of his apartment and denied his motion to
suppress.
On appeal, Banks argues that the district court erred in its findings. We review
the district court’s factual findings, including credibility determinations, for clear
error. United States v. White, 41 F.4th 1036, 1038 (8th Cir. 2022). “[W]hen findings
are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the level of
deference is even higher than the standard already described.” United States v.
Tucker, 243 F.3d 499, 506 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer
City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985)). Moreover, when a district court “credit[s] the
testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and
facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if
not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.” Id. (quoting Anderson,

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
470 U.S. at 575). Presented with two permissible but conflicting views of the events
at Banks’s apartment, the district court found the testimony of the law enforcement
officers more credible. This finding was not “incoherent or facially implausible,”
“contradicted by extrinsic evidence,” or “internally inconsistent,” and we discern no
clear error. Id.
Banks also argues the district court erred in failing to explain its reasoning for
crediting the officers’ testimony over his, his girlfriend’s, and his neighbor’s. In
support, however, he relies solely on out-of-circuit cases that address concerns not
present here. See United States v. Forbes, 181 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1999) (remanding
where a district court made inconsistent determinations as to a single witness’s
credibility); United States v. Haynes, 301 F.3d 669, 680–81 (6th Cir. 2002)
(reversing where a district court relied on contradictory testimony and reasoning of
government witnesses); United States v. Asido, 9 F. App’x 925, 931–32 (10th Cir.
2001) (remanding where a district court made contradictory credibility
determinations). In any event, we find the district court made sufficiently detailed
factual findings and credibility determinations that were supported by the record.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --