012045P.pdf   02/15/2005  USA  v.  John J. Fellers
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  01-2045
   District of Nebraska   
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Lay and Riley, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - criminal law. On remand from the Supreme Court 
   [Fellers v. United States, 540 U.S. 519 (2004)], the court concludes the 
   exclusionary rule is inapplicable to defendant's jailhouse confession, 
   because, as with the Fifth Amendment in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 
   (1985), the use of the exclusionary rule in this case would serve neither 
   deterrence nor any other goal of the Sixth Amendment; both the 
   deterrence of future violations and the vindication of defendant's right-to- 
   counsel guarantee have been effectuated through suppression of his initial 
   statements, and suppression of his subsequent jailhouse statements would 
   not promote the fairness of the trial process because their introduction 
   was not unfair to defendant; applying the multiple-factor test derived 
   from the Supreme Court's plurality decision in Missouri v. Seibert, 124 
   S.Ct. 2601 (2004), officers' conduct in the case did not vitiate the 
   effectiveness of the Miranda warnings given to defendant. Conviction 
   affirmed, but case remanded for resentencing under Booker. 
  
012045P.pdf   04/08/2002  USA  v.  John J. Fellers
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  01-2045
   District of Nebraska   
   Criminal case - criminal law. Jailhouse statements were 
   knowingly and voluntarily made following the administration 
   of the Miranda warnings and were admissible; drugs seized 
   from co-conspirator were admissible; evidence was 
   sufficient to support conspiracy conviction; district court 
   properly calculated amount of drugs for which defendant 
   was responsible; court did not err in finding criminal history 
   inadequately reflected the seriousness of defendant's record; 
   discretionary refusal to grant a downward departure is 
   unreviewable; Judge Riley concurring.