As Defendant conceded, armed robbery is a serious crime. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 633 F. App'x 750, 753-54 (11th Cir. 2015) (finding that the district court reasonably concluded that the charged crimes were "incredibly serious" because armed robbery of a suspected drug dealer is an inherently violent offense); United States v. Branham, 285 F. App'x 642, 644 (11th Cir. 2008) (finding the bank robbery offenses were serious in nature for purposes of section 3162(a)). Each armed robbery carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
As the Eleventh Circuit has previously found that less serious crimes are "incredibly" serious, the Court finds the offense with which Defendant is charged is among the most serious chargeable under the United States Code. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson , 633 Fed.Appx. 750, 753–54 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming district court's conclusion that armed robbery of a suspected drug dealer is an "incredibly serious" offense). Indeed, Defendant rightly conceded in his pleadings and at oral argument that the offenses with which he is charged are serious within the meaning of Taylor.
Thus, as Peragine concedes, (Tr. at 35), his argument is foreclosed by binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, and his motion to suppress evidence is due to be denied.See United States v. Wilson, 633 F. App'x 750, 753 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citation omitted) (noting that defendant's argument that "his cell site data was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights" was foreclosed by Davis). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Peragine's motion to suppress cell site records, [Doc. 26], be DENIED.B. Motion to Suppress Statements, [Doc. 25]
United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039, 1049 (11th Cir. 2013) ("The SCA creates criminal and civil penalties, but no exclusionary remedy. . . ."); see also United States v. Wilson, 633 Fed. Appx. 750, 753 (11th Cir. Dec. 8, 2015) (same); 18 U.S.C. § 2712(a) (providing that "any person who is aggrieved by any willful violation of this chapter . . . may commence an action in United States District Court against the United States to recover money damages."). In addition, the Government complied with the requirement of federal law in obtaining the order for historical cell site data.
Pretermitting the question of whether the SCA even applies to Marks' private collection of Defendant's e-mails, the SCA provides for a private right of action against violators other than the United States and does not provide for suppression as a remedy in criminal proceedings. United States v. Wilson, No. 14-12945, 2015 WL 8121493, at *2 (11th Cir. Dec. 8, 2015) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2707).