United States v. Ellis Harp, III

Case: 19-30333 Document: 00515301968 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2020
REVISED February 7, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 19-30333
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar February 5, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
ELLIS HARP, III,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:17-CR-301-1
Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ellis Harp, III, conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with
intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime. See FED. R. APP. P. 11(a)(2). After appellate briefing was
completed, Harp’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw. Harp then filed a
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 19-30333 Document: 00515301968 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2020
No. 19-30333
response, explaining that he wishes to proceed pro se. Because neither counsel
nor Harp has shown that there is a conflict of interest or that the interests of
justice require relief of counsel, we deny the motion for leave to withdraw as
appointed counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c); FIFTH CIRCUIT PLAN UNDER THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT § 5(B). We also deny as untimely Harp’s motion to
proceed pro se. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir. 1998).
On appeal, Harp challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence obtained pursuant to three search warrants. He asserts
that the warrants were not adequately supported by probable cause and that
they failed to state with particularity the crimes being investigated and the
items to be seized.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained
pursuant to a search warrant, we initially must determine whether the good
faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. United States v. Cherna, 184
F.3d 403, 406-07 (5th Cir. 1999). If so, we need not engage in further analysis.
Id. Under the good faith exception, “evidence obtained in objectively
reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant” should not
be excluded. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). By failing to
brief the issue, Harp has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s
application of the good faith exception. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-
25 (5th Cir. 1993). In any event, Harp did not object to the magistrate judge’s
finding that the good faith exception applied, and he fails to show plain error.
See United States v. Woerner, 709 F.3d 527, 533-34 (5th Cir. 2013); Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420-23, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996),
superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
MOTIONS DENIED; AFFIRMED.
2