United States v. Omar Williams ( 2020 )

Case: 19-31043 Document: 00515577183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 24, 2020
No. 19-31043
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Omar Williams,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 19-31064
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Lequinton Jerry,
Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 19-31043 Document: 00515577183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2020
No. 19-31043
c/w No. 19-31064
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:18-CR-331-2
USDC No. 5:18-CR-331-1
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Omar Williams and Lequinton Jerry each appeals his conditional
guilty-plea conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Each
argues that the district court erred by denying his respective motion to
suppress evidence seized from the vehicle driven by Williams, and in which
Jerry was riding as a passenger, following a traffic stop conducted by Bossier
Parish Sheriff’s Office (BPSO) Lieutenant David Faulk. Specifically, each
contends that the district court erred by crediting, over Williams’s testimony
to the contrary, Faulk’s testimony that he initiated the traffic stop after
seeing the appellants’ vehicle weave and touch both the fog line and
centerline of the road in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute Annotated
§ 32:79. See United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d 459, 463-64 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1999)
(holding that officer had probable cause to initiate traffic stop based on
witnessed § 32:79 violation).
“When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this
Court reviews factual findings for clear error and the ultimate
constitutionality of law enforcement action de novo.” United States v.
Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2014). A credibility determination is a
factual finding. United States v. Gomez, 623 F.3d 265, 268 (5th Cir. 2010).
The clearly erroneous standard is particularly deferential when, as in the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
2
Case: 19-31043 Document: 00515577183 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/24/2020
No. 19-31043
c/w No. 19-31064
instant case, “denial of a suppression motion is based on live oral testimony
. . . 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). The district court’s choice between
two permissible views of the evidence cannot be clearly erroneous. United
States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956, 967 (5th Cir. 2014).
While Williams and Jerry insist that the district court should have
accepted their version of events over Faulk’s, neither attempts to show that
the district court’s credibility determinations—particularly with regard to
whether the traffic infraction occurred—were based upon an impermissible
view of the evidence. See id. Further, as Williams acknowledges, even if
Faulk had reasons other than the witnessed infraction for making the stop,
such reasons are irrelevant for Fourth Amendment purposes so long as the
infraction took place. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996);
United States v. Harris, 566 F.3d 422, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2009).
The appellants have failed to show that the credibility determinations
at issue were clearly erroneous. See Gibbs, 421 F.3d at 357. Accordingly, they
have failed to show that the district court erred by holding that Faulk had
probable cause to initiate the stop. See Jones, 185 F.3d at 463-64 & n.3.
AFFIRMED.
3