United States v. Miller

Case: 21-30432 Document: 00516318781 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 13, 2022
No. 21-30432
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Trenton J. Miller,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:19-CR-76-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Trenton J. Miller pleaded guilty, pursuant to a conditional plea
agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He
was sentenced to 115 months of imprisonment followed by five years of
supervised release. He argues on appeal that the district court 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-30432 Document: 00516318781 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2022
No. 21-30432
denying his motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop, dog sniff, and
subsequent vehicle search that led to his arrest. Specifically, he contends that
the state trooper (1) unconstitutionally extended his detention because he
lacked reasonable suspicion and failed to ask certain questions to dispel any
suspicion, and (2) lacked probable cause to search the vehicle because
narcotics dog’s alert was ambiguous. He also challenges his sentence.
On appeal from a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we
review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. United States
v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds on denial of
reh’g, 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010). Given the totality of the circumstances,
the district court did not err in concluding that the trooper developed
reasonable suspicion during the traffic stop that Miller was involved in
criminal activity. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273-74 (2002);
United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 507-08 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
The district court also did not err in concluding that the extension of the
detention for the arrival of the narcotics dog to confirm or dispel the
trooper’s suspicion was reasonable. See Pack, 612 F.3d at 361-62; see also
United States v. Smith, 952 F.3d 642, 650-51 (5th Cir. 2020). Finally, the
district court did not err in finding that the dog’s alert provided probable
cause to search the trunk of Miller’s vehicle. See Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S.
237, 248 (2013); United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005).
Lastly, Miller contends that his above-guidelines sentence is
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Because the district court
imposed an upward variance, Miller’s argument that the district court
procedurally erred under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 is unavailing. See United States v.
Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 151-53 (5th Cir. 2011). We review his preserved
challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence for abuse of
discretion. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67
2
Case: 21-30432 Document: 00516318781 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2022
No. 21-30432
(2020); United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). In light of
the deferential standard of review, Miller fails to show that the district court
failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave
significant weight to an improper factor, or clearly erred in balancing the
sentencing factors. See United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440 (5th Cir.
2013); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
3