DocketNumber： 96-1910
Filed Date： 4/3/1997
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/21/2015
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 96-1910
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN S. LEVESQUE,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge, _____________
Aldrich and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges. _____________________
____________________
Jonathan R. Saxe, with whom Twomey & Sisti Law Offices were ________________ __________________________
on brief, for appellant.
David A. Vicinanzo, Assistant United States Attorney, with __________________
whom Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Peter E. Papps, ______________ ______________
First Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for
appellee.
____________________
MARCH 13, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Levesque appeals from the denial of Per Curiam. __________
his motion to suppress which challenges the legality of
searches and seizures. Those searches and seizures, which
arose initially out of a routine traffic stop, produced
approximately 328 pounds of marijuana, which ultimately led
to criminal charges against Levesque, said to be the person
for whom the marijuana was intended.
Two men from New Hampshire, one in a U-Haul truck
and one in a Dodge pick-up, were stopped on a Kansas highway
by state troopers and found to have marijuana hidden in those
vehicles. They were arrested. The driver of the pick-up
truck told the authorities that the marijuana was destined
for Jonathan Levesque. A controlled delivery was arranged,
and Levesque was subsequently arrested. Levesque pled guilty
to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute,
reserving his right to challenge the district court's denial
of his motion to suppress various items of evidence stemming
from the stops and searches of the U-Haul and Dodge trucks.
Levesque now appeals.
Like the district court, we do not reach the issue
of whether Levesque had standing to challenge the searches
and seizures at issue. The district court found that the
challenged searches and seizures were valid and conducted
within constitutional limits. We agree and affirm on the
district court's well-reasoned opinion. Local Rule 27.1.
-2- 2
Affirmed. ________
ON]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 96-1910
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN S. LEVESQUE,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
-3- 3
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge, _____________
Aldrich and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges. _____________________
____________________
Jonathan R. Saxe, with whom Twomey & Sisti Law _________________ ____________________
Offices were on brief, for appellant. _______
David A. Vicinanzo, Assistant United States ______________________
Attorney, with whom Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, ______________
and Peter E. Papps, First Assistant United States Attorney, _______________
were on brief, for appellee.
____________________
MARCH 13, 1977
____________________
-4- 4
Per Curiam. Levesque appeals from the denial of Per Curiam. __________
his motion to suppress which challenges the legality of
searches and seizures. Those searches and seizures, which
arose initially out of a routine traffic stop, produced
approximately 328 pounds of marijuana, which ultimately led
to criminal charges against Levesque, said to be the person
for whom the marijuana was intended.
Two men from New Hampshire, one in a U-Haul truck
and one in a Dodge pick-up, were stopped on a Kansas highway
by state troopers and found to have marijuana hidden in those
vehicles. They were arrested. The driver of the pick-up
truck told the authorities that the marijuana was destined
for Jonathan Levesque. A controlled delivery was arranged,
and Levesque was subsequently arrested. Levesque pled guilty
to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute,
reserving his right to challenge the district court's denial
of his motion to suppress various items of evidence stemming
from the stops and searches of the U-Haul and Dodge trucks.
Levesque now appeals.
Like the district court, we do not reach the issue
of whether Levesque had standing to challenge the searches
and seizures at issue. The district court found that the
challenged searches and seizures were valid and conducted
within constitutional limits. We agree and affirm on the
district court's well-reasoned opinion. Local Rule 27.1.
-2- 2
Affirmed. ________
-3- 3