United States v. Saling ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40244
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT DANIEL SALING, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CR-46-ALL
--------------------
October 31, 2001
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Daniel Saling, Jr. (Saling) appeals his conviction
after a jury trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Saling argues that the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was
gathered after a traffic stop. His arguments regarding the
suppression of his statement about the pistol found in his
vehicle and the failure of the district court to instruct the
jury on whether the traffic stop was valid have not been
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40244
-2-
adequately briefed and are therefore deemed abandoned. See Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Saling argues that the lane movement observed by the
arresting officer did not constitute a traffic violation under
Texas Transportation Code § 545.060 because the lane movement was
not unsafe or dangerous. The cases cited by Saling are
distinguishable from this case. In this case, the arresting
officer subjectively believed that Saling was driving under some
kind of impairment, possibly intoxication, and he based this
suspicion on objective reasons, including the time of day, the
location, and the vehicle’s movements. See Hernandez v. State,
983 S.W.2d 867, 870 (Tex. App. 1998, pet. ref’d); cf. State v.
Tarvin, 972 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tex. App. 1998, pet. ref’d); State
v. Arriaga, 5 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Tex. App. 1999, pet. ref’d); and
Ehrhart v. State, 9 S.W.3d 929, 930 (Tex. App. 2000, pet. ref’d).
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.