USA v. Randall Curry
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-10503 Affirmed ] Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 04/25/2012 for Appellant Randall Ladon Curry [11-10503]
Date Filed: 04/04/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
April 4, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RANDALL LADON CURRY,
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CR-53-1
Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Randall Ladon Curry appeals his conditional guilty plea conviction of
being a felon in possession of a firearm. He contends that the district court erred
in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle following
a traffic stop. He argues that the police officers did not have probable cause to
stop his vehicle or to search its contents. Also, for the first time on appeal, he
argues that the officers did not have probable cause to seize a firearm found in
plain view because its incriminating nature was not immediately apparent.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 04/04/2012
When a district court denies a motion to suppress, we review its
conclusions of law de novo and its findings of facts, including credibility
determinations, for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the government. United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381, 384-85 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 131 S. Ct. 177 (2010). We review arguments not raised during the
suppression inquiry in the district court at most for plain error. United States
v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 328-29 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
The police officers who stopped Curry testified that they initiated the
encounter after Curry committed a traffic violation and conducted a search
because they smelled marijuana as they approached the vehicle. The district
court did not clearly err in crediting their testimony over Curry’s contrary
statements or in err in determining that their statements proved probable cause
to justify the stop and subsequent search. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S.
806, 810 (1996); United States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 687 (5th Cir. 1995).
Curry’s argument that the police lacked probable cause to seize his pistol lacks
merit and does not establish error, much less plain error. See Baker, 538 F.3d
at 328-29 & n.1.
Curry also argues that the district court erred by ordering that his
sentence run consecutively to a yet-to-be imposed state sentence.
concedes that, at the time this appeal was filed, that argument was foreclosed
by our decision in United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.
1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 47273 (5th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has now reached the same conclusion.
Setser v. United States, No. 10-7387, --- S. Ct. ----, 2012 WL 1019970 (Mar. 28,
2012) (holding that it is within a district court’s discretion to order that a federal
sentence run consecutively to an anticipated state court sentence that has not
yet been imposed). Accordingly, Curry’s argument lacks merit.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?