United States v. Yett

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 95-50872 Summary Calendar ___________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

BARRY YETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas (A-95-CR-33) ____________________________________________________ October 22, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Barry Yett appeals the district court’s denial of his motion

to suppress evidence discovered during a search conducted pursuant

to a search warrant for Buck’s Automotive. Yett contends that

officers conducting the search knew or should have known that the

building designated as Buck’s Automotive was a multiple-business

building and that their search of the entire building violated his

rights under the Fourth Amendment.

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the

district court’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly

erroneous and review de novo the ultimate determination of

reasonableness. United States v. Chavez-Villarreal, 3 F.3d 124,

126 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Jenkins, 46 F.3d 447, 451

(5th Cir. 1995). The district court made specific findings, based

in part on the credibility of the witnesses, that there was no

evidence that two separate businesses were housed in the building

and that Yett failed to present any evidence to persuade the

district court that the agents knew, or should have known, about

the existence of a separate business either prior to or during the

execution of the warrant. Yett has failed to demonstrate that the

district court’s findings were clearly erroneous. Based on these

findings, we agree with the district court’s determination that the

officers acted reasonably and in good faith in obtaining and

executing the warrant in question. Accordingly, the order of the

district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.