United States v. Green

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit June 1, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50463
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
VERSUS
WILLIAM ANDREW GREEN
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(03-CR-134)
Before SMITH, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The defendant, William Andrew Green, appeals his conviction
for conspiracy to distribute, and possession with intent to
distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), 846. Green challenges his conviction on the ground that
the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence
obtained as a result of a traffic stop. Following a conditional
*
Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
plea to the charges, Green appealed. Green asserts that the law
enforcement officer who stopped him did not have probable cause or
reasonable suspicion to further detain him after issuing a valid
traffic citation. He also contends that his consent to search his
vehicle was not voluntary, that the officer’s seizure of cash found
during the search was unreasonable, and that his sentence should be
vacated under United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).1
We hold that the officer did not detain Green following the
issuance of the traffic citation. See United States v. Sanchez-
Pena, 336 F.3d 431, 441-43 (5th Cir. 2003). Rather, Green gave his
consent to further questioning in response to a request from the
officer. This exchange occurred after the officer had returned
Green’s licence and registration, and while Green was walking away
from the officer toward his own vehicle. Thus, the officer’s
request that Green answer further questions, and the questions that
followed his assent were an “ordinary consensual encounter between
a private citizen and a law enforcement official.” United States v.
Turner, 928 F.2d 956, 958 (10th Cir. 1991).
As for Green’s other arguments, we find that the government
has proven that Green’s consent to the search of his vehicle was
voluntary and that the officer had reasonable suspicion sufficient
to support the seizure of the cash found in plain view during a
consensual search. We also find that Green failed to preserve a
1
Green makes several related arguments, which the Court
finds unconvincing.
Booker objection in the district court, subjecting the issue to
plain error review. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th
Cir. 2005). Green has not made a showing that the error affected
his substantial rights. Id. Therefore, we decline to vacate his
sentence.
AFFIRMED.