Filed: Aug. 23, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10131 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MISTY D. BURGAN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:99-CR-41-2 - August 22, 2000 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Misty D. Burgan entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of stolen mail and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10131 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MISTY D. BURGAN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:99-CR-41-2 - August 22, 2000 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Misty D. Burgan entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of stolen mail and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10131
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MISTY D. BURGAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:99-CR-41-2
--------------------
August 22, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Misty D. Burgan entered a conditional guilty plea to
possession of stolen mail and aiding and abetting in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1708. She now appeals the district court’s
denial of her motion to suppress evidence gathered at a search as
well as statements made by her as a consequence of the search.
Having reviewed the record, we reject Burgan’s argument that
the district court clearly erred in finding that she gave her
consent to the search. See United States v. Tellez,
11 F.3d 530,
532 (5th Cir. 1993). We also reject her argument that she lacked
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-10131
-2-
the authority to consent to the search. See United States v.
Matlock,
415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). Because Burgan has shown no
error by the district court, there is no basis for suppressing
her incriminating statements as fruit of an illegal search.
Finally, we deem abandoned, for lack of adequate briefing, any
argument that her statements should have been suppressed pursuant
to Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966). See American States
Ins. Co. v. Bailey,
133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 1998); Fed.
R. App. P. 28(a)(9).
AFFIRMED.