United States v. Kelley

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Kelley

268 F. App'x 304

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

Docket07-40514, 07-40515

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 F. App'x 304 (United States v. Kelley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Kelley, 268 F. App'x 304 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Vermon Kelley appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of six grams of cocaine base. Kelley also appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release that had been imposed in connection with a prior conviction. Kelley argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress a post-arrest statement that he made to law enforcement officials regarding his possession of firearms because he was not Mirandized before he made the statement. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

After Kelley was handcuffed and arrested and before he was Mirandized, Kelley told a police officer where firearms could be located in his residence in response to the officer’s question. Because the officer’s question was based on his concern about the safety of the officers on the scene and before the officers had completed a protective sweep of the residence, the district court did not err in denying Kelley’s motion to suppress. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 653, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984); Fleming v. Collins, 954 F.2d 1109, 1112-14 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Vermon Kelley appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of six grams of cocaine base. Kelley also appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release that had been imposed in connection with a prior conviction. Kelley argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress a post-arrest statement that he made to law enforcement officials regarding his possession of firearms because he was not Mirandized before he made the statement. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

After Kelley was handcuffed and arrested and before he was Mirandized, Kelley told a police officer where firearms could be located in his residence in response to the officer’s question. Because the officer’s question was based on his concern about the safety of the officers on the scene and before the officers had completed a protective sweep of the residence, the district court did not err in denying Kelley’s motion to suppress. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 653, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984); Fleming v. Collins, 954 F.2d 1109, 1112-14 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 F. App'x 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kelley-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack