United States v. James Edward Hicks ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                                     ___________
    No. 96-1580
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                   * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    James Edward Hicks,                       *
    *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted:    February 5, 1997
    Filed:   February 7, 1997
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    James Hicks appeals his conviction and 112-month sentence imposed by
    the district court1 following his conditional guilty plea to possessing an
    unregistered firearm, in violation of 
    26 U.S.C. §§ 5861
    (d) and 5871.        We
    affirm.
    Hicks argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
    suppress the shotgun found in his car at the time of his arrest.            We
    conclude the district court did not clearly err, as the evidence in the
    record shows the officers had probable cause to arrest Hicks; thus, the
    contemporaneous search of the car was valid as a search incident to arrest
    and as an inventory search.     See United States v. Clapp, 
    46 F.3d 795
    , 799
    (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); United States v. Cummins, 
    920 F.2d 498
    , 502 (8th Cir.
    1
    The HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., United States District
    Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    1990), cert. denied, 
    502 U.S. 962
     (1991).
    Hicks also argues that the district court erred in denying his
    request for a downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
    § 4A1.3 (1995) (over-represented criminal history).    Hicks has not shown
    nor does the record indicate that the district court was unaware of its
    authority to depart from the Guidelines range.     Consequently, we cannot
    review the district court's discretionary refusal to depart.       See United
    States v. Elkins, 
    16 F.3d 952
    , 954 (8th Cir. 1994).
    Finally, we reject Hicks's challenge to the constitutionality of
    section 5861(d).     See United States v. Aiken, 
    974 F.2d 446
    , 448-49 (4th
    Cir. 1992); United States v. Parker, 
    960 F.2d 498
    , 500 (5th Cir. 1992); see
    also United States v. Hale, 
    978 F.2d 1016
    , 1018 (8th Cir. 1992), cert.
    denied, 
    507 U.S. 997
     (1993).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-