Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
May 19, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-50268
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL BRENNAND SEELEY,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Brennand Seeley appeals his convictions at a bench
trial for importing marijuana into the United States and for
possessing marihuana with intent to distribute. Because his notice
of appeal was filed within ten days after the district court
reentered the criminal judgment, this court has jurisdiction over
the appeal. Cf. United States v. West, 240 F.3d 456, 458-59 (5th
Cir. 2001).
Seeley contends that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress. Because he did not object to the magistrate

judge's report recommending that the motion be denied, this court
reviews for plain error. See United States v. Francis, 183 F.3d
450, 452 (5th Cir. 1999). Seeley has not appealed the district
court's conclusion that the stop of the car was supported by
reasonable suspicion and that his post-arrest statements were
admissible, and any such claims are deemed abandoned. See Yohey v.
collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Seeley has not
established that there was plain error in the holding that he
lacked standing to challenge the search of the rental car, as he
(the sole occupant of the car) was not the renter or an authorized
driver. See United States v. Boruff, 909 F.2d 111, 117 (5th Cir.
1990). See also, e.g., United States v. Riazco, 91 F.3d 752, 754-
55 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Wellons, 3 F.3d 117 (4th Cir.
1994); United States v. Obregon, 748 F.2d 1371, 1374-75 (10th Cir.
1984).1 Seeley also has not established that the district court
plainly erred in concluding that his prearrest statements were
admissible as a response to a question by the stopping officer
"confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions." Berkemer v.
1United States v. Kye Soo Lee, 898 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1990)
(not cited by either party) is not controlling here because it
neither reflects nor addresses the terms of the truck rental
agreement. Here Seeley had nothing to do with the rental, never
presented his driver's license (or name) to Alamo (the rental
company) and was merely given the keys by his friend just after the
friend rented the car from Alamo, the friend not intending to use
the car but simply, at Seeley's request, renting it for Seeley
because Seeley did not have an appropriate credit card, and the
rental agreement provides "no additional renters are authorized to
drive the vehicle."
2

McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984).
Seeley also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his drug convictions. With respect to his importation
conviction, the evidence established that Seeley's car was seen in
various locations near the border, and Seeley admitted to having
been in Mexico earlier in the evening. See United States v.
Moreno, 185 F.3d 465, 471 (5th Cir. 1999). The 59.8 pounds of
marihuana found in Seeley's car were sufficient to support a
finding of an intent to distribute. See United States v. Williams-
Hendricks, 805 F.2d 496, 501-02 (5th Cir. 1986). After reviewing
the evidence presented and the arguments of the parties, we hold
that "the trial judge, as the trier of fact, [could conclude]
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty." United
States v. Mathes, 151 F.3d 251, 252 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently,
the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3