Case ID: f-appx_187/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Glen HARVICK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-10401
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 20, 2006.
    Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James Warren St. John, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Glen Harvick appeals his conviction for importation of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and aiding and abetting, contending that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress. Relying on Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 931, 115 S.Ct. 1914, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995), and 18 U.S.C. § 3109, Harvick argued in the district court that the officers did not comply with the “knock and announce” rule before entering the apartment where the MDMA was found.

On appeal, Harvick challenges only the district court’s factual determination that the officers did not conduct an unannounced entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment. After reviewing the transcript of the suppression hearing, we conclude that the district court did not commit clear error in finding that the entry did not violate the “knock and announce” principle. See United States v. Santiago, 310 F.3d 336, 340 (5th Cir.2002).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.