United States v. Jones ( 2003 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30744
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY JONES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(02-CR-39-ALL-A)
--------------------
March 19, 2003
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Michael Anthony Jones entered a
conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Jones appeals
the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the firearm
found during a warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving.
Jones concedes that the New Orleans police officer’s initial entry
into the vehicle was lawful, but contends that the district court
erred in crediting the testimony of the officer that he discovered
the firearm accidentally after he entered the vehicle.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
“In reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress, we review questions of law de novo, and accept the
district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly
erroneous.” United States v. Castro, 166 F.3d 728, 731 (5th Cir.
1999)(en banc). “[V]iew[ing] the relevant evidence in a light most
favorable to the party that prevailed; in this case, the
[G]overnment,” the district court did not clearly err in relying on
the officer’s testimony and finding that the officer discovered the
firearm accidentally. Id. The government witnesses “told a
coherent and facially plausible story that [wa]s not contradicted
by extrinsic evidence,” and the district court’s finding was “not
internally inconsistent.” Id. at 733; see also United States v.
Gillyard, 261 F.3d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 2001) (upholding district
court’s denial of motion to suppress evidence from warrantless
vehicle search based upon credibility assessment of testimony),
cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1094 (2002). Therefore, the district court
did not err when it denied the motion to suppress the admission of
the firearm into evidence. See id.; see also Gillyard, 261 F.3d at
509.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby
AFFIRMED.
2