USA v. Vasquez-Yax

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) O R D E R
)
FELICIANO ISMAEL VASQUEZ-YAX, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to
Suppress [Doc. 19]; The Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 44] regarding the disposition of that Motion; and the
Defendant’s Objection to Report and Recommendation [Doc. 46].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation
of this Court, the Honorable W. Carleton Metcalf, United States Magistrate
Judge, was designated to consider the above-referenced motion and to
submit recommendations for its disposition. On June 17, 2026, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation,
recommending that the Motion to Suppress [Doc. 19] be denied. [Doc. 44].
The parties were advised that any objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of
Case 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM Document 47 Filed 08/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
service. [Id.]. The Defendant filed his Objections on June 30, 2026. [Doc.
46]. The Government did not file a reply to the Defendant’s Objections.
In the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
noted that the only statement that the Defendant apparently made following
his arrest was his response to Agent Peachey’s call regarding access to the
safe where the Third Firearm was located. The Magistrate Judge reasoned
that “[s]ince Defendant was not provided with Miranda warnings prior to
making that statement, it would be subject to suppression.” [Doc. 44 at 22
n.6]. However, because it was “not clear that the Government intends to use
that statement,” the Magistrate Judgment did not recommend suppression
of such statement. [Id.].
The Defendant asserts that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined
that this post-arrest statement would be subject to suppression and therefore
argues that, at a minimum, the Motion to Suppress should be granted in part
with respect to this statement. The Court agrees, and therefore, the
Defendant’s Motion will be granted with respect to his post-arrest statement
to Agent Peachey.1
1 It does not appear that the Defendant’s post-arrest statement was a subject of the
Defendant’s suppression motion. [See Doc. 20 at 9]. However, it also does not appear
that the Government contends that the post-arrest statement would be admissible.
Therefore, in the interest of clarity, the Court will grant the Defendant’s motion as it
pertains to this one statement.
Case 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM Document 47 Filed 08/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
After a careful review of the remainder of the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judge’s other proposed conclusions of law are correct and are
consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court sustains the
Defendant’s Objection in part and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation only in part. The Defendant’s Motion
to Suppress is therefore granted with respect to the Defendant’s post-arrest
statement to Agent Peachey. In all other respects, the Motion is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Objection [Doc.
46] is SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART; the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 44] is ACCEPTED IN
PART and REJECTED IN PART as stated herein; and the Defendant’s
Motion to Suppress [Doc. 19] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Specifically, the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is granted with respect to
the Defendant’s post-arrest statement to Agent Peachey. In all other
respects, the Motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.Signed: August 6, 2026
Case 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM Document 47 Filed 08/06/26 Page 3 of 3