United States v. Rice, 95-10698 (1996)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 95-10698
Visitors: 27
Filed: May 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-10698 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RANDY FRANKLIN RICE, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (2:95-CR-14-1) _ May 7, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Randy Franklin Rice appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Having thoroughly reviewed the briefs and the record in light o
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-10698 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RANDY FRANKLIN RICE, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (2:95-CR-14-1) _ May 7, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Randy Franklin Rice appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Having thoroughly reviewed the briefs and the record in light of..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 95-10698 _______________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RANDY FRANKLIN RICE, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (2:95-CR-14-1) _________________________________________________________________ May 7, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Randy Franklin Rice appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Having thoroughly reviewed the briefs and the record in light of the candid and helpful presentations at oral argument, we find no clear error of fact or reversible error of law in the district court’s determination that the handcuffing of Rice did not vitiate his consent to search his automobile and that the police had authority to search the packages of suspected contraband that they had validly taken into custody. AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
Source: CourtListener
