Filed: Dec. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40045 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LEE ANTHONY FISHER, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (No. 1:95-CR-141) _ December 4, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lee Anthony Fisher appeals his convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for possession of cocaine base with the inten
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40045 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LEE ANTHONY FISHER, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (No. 1:95-CR-141) _ December 4, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lee Anthony Fisher appeals his convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for possession of cocaine base with the intent..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-40045
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEE ANTHONY FISHER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(No. 1:95-CR-141)
_________________________________________________________________
December 4, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lee Anthony Fisher appeals his convictions for being a felon
in possession of a firearm and for possession of cocaine base with
the intent to distribute it, contending that the district court
should have granted his motion to suppress. We conclude that
Fisher failed to make a prima facie case that police officers
conducted an unannounced entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment
and that the district court did not commit clear error in finding
that the entry did not violate the “knock and announce” principle.
*
Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
See Wilson v. Arkansas, ___ U.S. ___,
115 S. Ct. 1914 (1995);
United States v. Fike,
82 F.3d 1315, 1323 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, sub. nom. Douglas v. United States, cert. denied, 117 S.
Ct. 241 (1996); United States v. Mueller,
902 F.2d 336, 344 (5th
Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.