Filed: Jan. 12, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10190 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD MACK MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CR-105-ALL-T - January 11, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Donald Mack Martin was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea of contempt of court and of possession of firearms by a convicted
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10190 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD MACK MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CR-105-ALL-T - January 11, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Donald Mack Martin was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea of contempt of court and of possession of firearms by a convicted ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10190
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD MACK MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:94-CR-105-ALL-T
--------------------
January 11, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald Mack Martin was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea
of contempt of court and of possession of firearms by a convicted
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 402, 922(g), 924(a)(2) and
924(e). As part of his plea agreement, Martin reserved the right
to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress
the evidence of two firearms found when U.S. Marshals impounded
and searched his El Camino. Martin contends that his vehicle was
impounded and inventoried in violation of the Fourth Amendment
because (1) the U.S. Marshals’ procedures for impounding vehicles
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-10190
-2-
and conducting inventory searches are ambiguous and ill-defined;
(2) the U.S. Marshals did not impound his car pursuant to a valid
“caretaking” function; and (3) the inventory search was over
broad and was not conducted according to standardized procedures.
The district court did not err in determining that the U.S.
Marshals had sufficiently standardized procedures for impounding
vehicles and for conducting inventory searches. See United
States v. Bullock,
71 F.3d 171, 177 (1995).
Nor did the district court err in determining that Martin’s
vehicle was impounded pursuant to the U.S. Marshals’ caretaking
function, that the U.S. Marshals followed its procedures in
impounding and searching Martin’s vehicle, and that the search
was not over broad. See id.; United States v. Ponce,
8 F.3d 989,
996 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Prescott,
599 F.2d 103, 106
(5th Cir. 1979).
Martin has not shown that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress the evidence found in the
warrantless search of his vehicle. The district court’s judgment
is AFFIRMED.