DISCLAIMER:  The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
                        as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.

212469P.pdf   05/23/2023  United States  v.  Tawhyne Patterson, Sr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  21-2469
                          and No:  21-2485
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln   
[PUBLISHED] Erickson, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Defendants' challenges to the validity of a search warrant issued in Texas is rejected as the record showed the judge gave the application meaningful consideration and did not rubber stamp it or otherwise abandon his judicial role; the application established probable cause, and a mistake in names was not material; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant Patterson's motion to conduct a Franks hearing on a Nebraska search warrant application as he failed to show the affidavit in support of the application contained false or reckless statements intended to mislead the issuing judge; nor had he shown that probable cause could not be established without the challenged statements; evidentiary challenges rejected; claim of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments rejected; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant Damon's convictions for Hobbs Act robbery; under United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022), defendants' convictions and sentences for commission of murder with a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(j)(1) and (2) must be vacated; the evidence was sufficient to show defendants reached an agreement to knowingly possess firearms and forcibly enter a residence to acquire marijuana and money, and the jury's general verdict did not affect their substantial rights; application of the sentencing packaging doctrine was appropriate in this case, and the cases are remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.