Filed: Oct. 02, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 2, 2009 No. 06-11374 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CLINTON WADE DUNSON, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-97-ALL ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIA
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 2, 2009 No. 06-11374 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CLINTON WADE DUNSON, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-97-ALL ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 2, 2009
No. 06-11374
Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CLINTON WADE DUNSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CR-97-ALL
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United
States. The Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case for
further consideration in light of Arizona v. Gant,
129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). We
retain jurisdiction of the appeal and remand for the limited purpose of having
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 06-11374
the district court conduct an evidentiary hearing and whatever other
proceedings it deems appropriate for a determination on the issue of inevitable
discovery. See United States v. Casper,
2009 WL 2921732 at *1 (5th Cir. Sept.
14, 2009); see also United States v. Runyan,
275 F.3d 449, 466-67 (5th Cir.
2001).
REMANDED.
2