United States v. Ellis Harp, III

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 5, 2020
• Docket: 19-30333
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-30333 Document: 00515298959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED February 5, 2020 No. 19-30333 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ELLIS HARP, III,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:17-CR-301-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ellis Harp, III, conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. See FED. R. APP. P. 11(a)(2). After appellate briefing was completed, Harp’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw. Harp then filed a response, explaining that he wises to proceed pro se. Because neither counsel

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 19-30333 Document: 00515298959 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2020

No. 19-30333 nor Harp has show that there is a conflict of interest or that the interests of justice require relief of counsel, we deny the motion for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c); FIFTH CIRCUIT PLAN UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT § 5(B). We also deny as untimely Harp’s motion to proceed pro se. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir. 1998). On appeal, Harp challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to three search warrants. He asserts that the warrants were not adequately supported by probable cause and that they failed to state with particularity the crimes being investigated and the items to be seized. When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, we initially must determine whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 406-07 (5th Cir. 1999). If so, we need not engage in further analysis. Id. Under the good faith exception, “evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant” should not be excluded. United states v. Leon, 468, U.S. 897, 922 (1984). By failing to brief the issue, Harp has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s application of the good faith exception. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). In any event, Harp did not object to the magistrate judge’s finding that the good faith exception applied, and he fails to show plain error. See United States v. Woerner, 709 F.3d 527, 533-34 (5th Cir. 2013); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420-23, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). MOTIONS DENIED; AFFIRMED.