eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-04

United States v. Riggins ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 22-10306         Document: 00516712693             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10306
Summary Calendar                                 FILED
____________                                 April 14, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Austin Carl Thomas Riggins,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-273-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Austin Carl Thomas Riggins appeals his conditional guilty plea
conviction for possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of
methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred by denying his
motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search triggered by a police
officer’s plain-view sighting of a syringe in his jacket pocket.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10306      Document: 00516712693           Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-10306
In an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the
district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for
clear error. United States v. Garcia-Lopez,
    809 F.3d 834
    , 838 (5th Cir. 2016).
“A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of
the record as a whole.” United States v. Gomez,
    623 F.3d 265
    , 268 (5th Cir.
2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Evidence is viewed in
the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and “the clearly erroneous
standard is particularly strong” where, as here, the district court’s ruling is
based on live oral testimony. United States v. Gibbs,
    421 F.3d 352
    , 357 (5th
Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Specifically, the
district court relied on the testimony of an officer and an emergency medical
technician on the scene, both of whom the court deemed credible, as well as
a body camera recording of Riggins’s encounter with police that was narrated
by these witnesses.
Riggins argues that the body camera recording of his encounter with
police in fact contradicts the officer’s testimony that the syringe in Riggins’s
jacket pocket was in plain view. He cites our prior holding that “[f]indings
that are in plain contradiction of the videotape evidence constitute clear
error.” United States v. Wallen,
    388 F.3d 161
    , 164 (5th Cir. 2004). Even if
the body camera recording does not clearly show that the syringe was visible
inside Riggins’s pocket, we see nothing in the recording that plainly
contradicts the district court’s finding that the officer saw the syringe in plain
view. In light of our deferential standard of review, we conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in finding that the syringe was in plain view
before the challenged warrantless search. See Gomez,
    623 F.3d at 268
    ; Gibbs,
    421 F.3d at 357
    . The district court did not err in denying the motion to
suppress.
AFFIRMED.
2