United States of America v. Micah Meckiel Bruno

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICAH MECKIEL BRUNO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-10395
D.C. No.
2:17-cr-00214-KJD-VCF-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2021**
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: CLIFTON, NGUYEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Micah Bruno appeals from his criminal conviction for uttering counterfeit
obligations or securities. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Normally, we review the denial of a suppression motion de novo and the
underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Dixon, 984 F.3d 814,
818 (9th Cir. 2020). But where “the defendant attempts to raise new theories on
appeal in support of a motion to suppress,” he must show “good cause for failing to
present in his pre-trial motion the new theory for suppression he raises in [the]
appeal.” United States v. Guerrero, 921 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2019) (per
curiam), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1300 (2020); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3).
Here, like the Guerrero defendant, Bruno changed his argument on appeal.
In the district court, he disputed the government’s factual representations
supporting the search of his apartment. On appeal, he no longer argues that the
search warrant application contained factual inaccuracies or material omissions.
Rather, he argues that the facts were insufficient to establish probable cause.
Because Bruno fails to explain why he has good cause for not raising this argument
earlier, we deem it waived. See Guerrero, 921 F.3d at 898.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --