USA v. Jermaine Agu


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-50979 Affirmed 12-50115 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: PRO , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 11/21/2012 for Appellant Jermaine Lynn Agu; denying motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [7161154-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [7161154-3] [11-50979, 12-50115]

Download PDF
Case: 11-50979 Document: 00512038632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-50979 c/w No. 12-50115 Summary Calendar October 31, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JERMAINE LYNN AGU, also known as Bart, Defendant–Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-66-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jermaine Lynn Agu pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute crack cocaine, and he was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment and a 10-year term of supervised release. Agu now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-50979 Document: 00512038632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2012 No. 11-50979 c/w No. 12-50115 We review a district court’s factual findings on a motion to suppress for clear error and its conclusions about whether the Fourth Amendment was violated de novo. United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.), modified, 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the district court—in this case, the Government. Id. Agu argues that the incriminating evidence in this case should have been suppressed because it was discovered pursuant to a traffic stop that was pretextual. As Agu concedes, under the facts of his case, the Supreme Court’s holding in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), precludes him from obtaining relief on appeal. See Whren, 517 U.S. at 817-19. Although Agu’s argument lacks merit, it is not so frivolous as to warrant summary disposition. See United States v. Holy Land Found. For Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781-82 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary. 2

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?