United States v. Caesar

── United States v. Caesar ── Case No.: 23-8017 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 17, 2026 Category: General 23-8017 United States v. Caesar UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, MICHAEL H. PARK, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 23-8017 DMARIO CAESAR, Defendant-Appellant. * __________________________________________ FOR APPELLEE: TIFFANY H. LEE, Assistant United States Attorney, for Michael DiGiacomo, United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: DEVIN MCLAUGHLIN, Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, VT * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly.  Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. In 2018, officers with the Erie County Sherriff’s Department obtained a warrant to search “the premises located at 203 May St., Buffalo, New York” for evidence that Defendant-Appellant Dmario Caesar was engaged in drug trafficking. App’x at 52. During the ensuing search, officers entered a detached garage behind the premises and recovered narcotics and a firearm from the saddlebag of a motorcycle. Caesar moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the garage, but the district court denied his motion for lack of Fourth Amendment “standing.” Caesar then pleaded guilty under a conditional plea agreement to possession of 40 grams or more of fentanyl with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On appeal, Caesar challenges the denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress; 1 specifically, he argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for lack of Fourth Amendment standing without conducting an evidentiary hearing on that issue. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. “In reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, this Court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its application of law to fact de novo.” United States v. Lewis, 62 F.4th 733, 740 (2d Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). “The denial of an evidentiary hearing is reviewed 1 Caesar’s plea