United States v. Carter ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-10191
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    BOBBY LEE CARTER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:98-CR-294-ALL-T
    --------------------
    November 1, 1999
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Bobby Lee Carter (Carter) appeals his conditional guilty
    plea conviction for possession of firearms by a convicted felon.
    Carter challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
    suppress as well as the district court’s calculation of his base
    offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a).
    Carter, in his pre-trial motion to suppress, argued that
    Deputy United States Marshals and ATF agents gained consent to
    search Carter’s house under the pretext that they were looking
    for Carter’s fugitive stepson, when, in fact, they were looking
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-10191
    -2-
    for firearms that could be evidence of a crime.    This court
    reviews a ruling on a motion to suppress based upon live
    testimony under the clearly erroneous standard for findings of
    fact and de novo for questions of law.    United States v. Muniz-
    Melchor, 
    894 F.2d 1430
    , 1433-34 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    495 U.S. 923
     (1990).   We have reviewed the record and the briefs of
    the parties and conclude that the district court did not clearly
    err in finding that the officers’ primary purpose in searching
    Carter’s house was to look for Carter’s stepson.    We further
    conclude that the seizure of the firearms was lawful.    Even when
    officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual,
    they may generally ask questions of that individual.    Florida v.
    Bostick, 
    501 U.S. 429
    , 435 (1991).    Such encounters are
    consensual as long as a reasonable person would feel free to
    disregard the officers and go about his business.    
    Id. at 437
    .
    Nothing in the record indicates that Carter felt compelled to
    answer the ATF agent’s questions, or that he would have been
    prevented from walking away and going about his business.
    Carter additionally argues, for the first time on appeal,
    that the deputy marshals and ATF agents did not have authority to
    execute the Dallas County arrest warrant for Carter’s stepson.
    At the time of entry into Carter’s house, Texas state law gave
    these federal officers the power to search, seize and arrest.
    Tex. Code Crim. P. Ann. art. 2.122.    Carter’s argument cannot
    therefore satisfy the plain error standard.    United States v.
    Spires, 
    79 F.3d 464
    , 465 (5th Cir. 1996).
    No. 99-10191
    -3-
    Finally, Carter argues that the district court incorrectly
    used a base offense level of 20 on the erroneous assumption that
    the Norinco SKS he possessed was a firearm described in 
    18 U.S.C. § 921
    (a)(30).    Because Carter raises this argument for the first
    time on appeal, this court will review for plain error only.
    Spires, 
    79 F.3d at 465
    .   A sentencing court is required only to
    rule on any unresolved objections to the PSR, and “[f]acts
    contained in a PSR are considered reliable and may be adopted
    without further inquiry if the defendant fails to present
    competent rebuttal evidence.”   Fed. R. of Crim. P. 32(c)(1);
    United States v. Parker, 
    133 F.3d 322
    , 329 (5th Cir. 1998).
    Moreover, when the nature of the claimed error is a question of
    fact, the possibility that such a finding could rise to the level
    of obvious error required to meet part of the standard for plain
    error is remote.    Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 
    70 F.3d 21
    ,
    23 (5th Cir. 1995).   There is no basis from which to conclude
    that the court’s finding was erroneous and no plain error.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-10191

Filed Date: 11/5/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014