United States v. Shelby Darby ( 2020 )

Case: 19-30593 Document: 00515572650 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-30593 September 21, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Shelby Jude Darby,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:18-CR-92-1
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Shelby Jude Darby entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of
firearms following conviction of a felony, reserving his right to appeal the
denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained following a traffic stop on
November 1, 2017. He now argues that the district court clearly erred in
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-30593 Document: 00515572650 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2020
No. 19-30593
finding that Corporal Ricky Fontenot observed a window tint violation prior
to effecting the stop and, therefore, the stop was not supported by reasonable
suspicion.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review
the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law
de novo. United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2005).
“Where a district court’s denial of a suppression motion is based on live oral
testimony, the clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong because the
judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.” United
States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). A district court properly defers to the magistrate
judge’s credibility determinations when those determinations are supported
by the record. Id.
Based on our review of the testimony and evidence presented at the
suppression hearing, we are not persuaded that Fontenot’s incident report,
the dash camera footage, or any of the purported internal inconsistencies or
memory lapses identified by Darby render Fontenot’s testimony that he
observed the window tint violation prior to stopping Darby’s car incredible
as a matter of law. See United States v. Scott, 892 F.3d 791, 797 (5th Cir. 2018)
(“Testimony is incredible as a matter of law only if it relates to facts that the
witness could not possibly have observed or to events which could not have
occurred under the laws of nature.”) (quotation marks and citations
omitted.). Instead, the district court plausibly concluded that Fontenot’s
review of the map and the clarifying questions posed by the magistrate judge
refreshed his recollection. See United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562, 574 (5th
Cir. 2008). Because the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, the
district court did not err in denying Darby’s motion to suppress. See Lopez-
Moreno, 420 F.3d at 430. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2