United States v. Johntario Holmes

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 14, 2024
• Docket: 23-2920
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-2920 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Johntario Jovonta Holmes

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado ____________

Submitted: March 7, 2024 Filed: March 14, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Johntario Holmes appeals after pleading guilty to a firearm offense. The district court1 sentenced him to 60 months in prison. His counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

1 The Honorable Susan. O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not err in denying Holmes’s motion to suppress. See United States v. Holly, 983 F.3d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court reviews findings of fact for clear error and legal conclusions de novo). The traffic stop was not unlawfully extended. See United States v. Jones, 269 F.3d 919, 924 (8th Cir. 2001) (police officer, incident to investigating a lawful traffic stop, may request the driver’s license and registration, request that the driver step out of the vehicle, request that the driver wait in the patrol car, and conduct routine inquiries). Holmes lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in his vehicle after fleeing it. See United States v. Smith, 648 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir. 2011) (no expectation of privacy in vehicle defendant abandoned to flee from police).

This court has also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

-2-