United States v. Tuell ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-11322
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ALLEN TUELL, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4-98-CR-191-1-E
    --------------------
    July 11, 2000
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Allen Tuell, Jr., appeals the district court’s denial of his
    motion to suppress evidence that was obtained through a search of
    his car.   Tuell has failed to demonstrate that the district court
    erred in holding that the search was a valid inventory search
    that was conducted pursuant to a valid impoundment of his car.
    See United States v. Staller, 
    616 F.2d 1284
    , 1289 (5th Cir.
    1980).   Tuell’s contention that the officers stopped and arrested
    him so that they could search his car is also unavailing.   The
    constitutional reasonableness of a traffic stop does not depend
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 99-11322
    -2-
    upon the actual motivations of the officer involved.    See Whren
    v. United States, 
    517 U.S. 806
     (1996).
    Tuell argues that the district court erred in increasing his
    total offense level by two levels for possession of a dangerous
    weapon.   This adjustment was not erroneous.   Because the firearms
    were found in the same location as narcotics, their connection
    with the drug offense was not clearly improbable.    See United
    States v. Mitchell, 
    31 F.3d 271
    , 277 (5th Cir. 1994).    Tuell has
    failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in denying
    his motion to suppress or in increasing his total offense level
    by two levels.   Consequently, the judgment of the district court
    is AFFIRMED.