United States v. Martin

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-51306
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN COBIN MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-9-CR-975-ALL-H
--------------------
December 19, 2001
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Corbin Martin appeals his conviction for possession of
machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Martin argues
that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress based on live
testimony, we accept the district court's factual findings unless
they are clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of
the law. United States v. Alvarez, 6 F.3d 287, 289 (5th Cir.
1993). “‘Where the judge bases a finding of consent on the oral
testimony at a suppression hearing, the clearly erroneous standard
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-51306
-2-
is particularly strong since the judge had the opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses.’” United States v. Kelley,
981 F.2d 1464, 1470 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v.
Sutton, 850 F.2d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir. 1988)).
There is nothing in the record to show that the district court
was clearly erroneous in finding that Martin was aware of his
rights and consented to cooperate for the purpose of securing a
civilian prosecution rather than a court martial, that no promise
of immunity had been made to induce the consent to search, and that
Martin’s decision to cooperate had been an act of free will. See
United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 282-83 (5th Cir. 1997).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Martin’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v.
Grant, 117 F.3d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Carr,
740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984).
AFFIRMED.