USA vs. Larez, (5th Cir. 2002)
Linked as:
Text
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-51160 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RENE LUJAN LAREZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-00-CR-148-ALL August 15, 2002 Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rene Lujan Larez (“Larez”) appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine. Larez’s plea agreement preserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession to ownership of cocaine found in a search of his mother’s house; the seizure and confession followed an earlier traffic stop of Larez which the district court deemed illegal.
Because Larez failed to object to the magistrate judgeÂ’s report and recommendation on the motion to suppress, review is for plain error. See See United States v. Francis , 183 F.3d 450, 452 (5th Cir. 1999) (applying plain-error review when Government failed to file objection to magistrate judgeÂ’s recommendation on suppression issue); Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto.
AssÂ’n , 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) ( en banc ) (failure to object to report and recommendation results in plain error review of both factual findings and legal conclusions). Further, the district court did not err in denying a second motion to suppress because the issues asserted had been raised and rejected in accordance with the partiesÂ’ agreement at the suppression hearing on LarezÂ’s first motion.
There was no error, plain or otherwise, in the district courtÂ’s determination, based on uncontradicted testimony which the court found credible, that LarezÂ’s confession to ownership of the cocaine in his motherÂ’s house was admissible because the causal connection between the illegal stop and the later confession had been broken. See United States v. Miller , 608 F.2d 1089, 1102-03 (5th Cir. 1979). The record is devoid of evidence that LarezÂ’s confession was coerced or was other than a voluntary act of free will.
AFFIRMED.
No. 01-51160
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Joshua Lee Francis, Defendant - Appellee., 183 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 1999)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clifford Jerome Miller and Kathelyn Vandraiss Miller, Defendants-Appellees. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clifford Jerome Miller, Defendant-Appellee., 608 F.2d 1089 (5th Cir. 1979)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Paul W. Douglass, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United Services Automobile Association, Defendant-Appellee., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
