Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20543/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20543-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charly Daher
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 11, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20503

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLY DAHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CR-314-1

 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charly Daher appeals his conviction for possession with intent

to distribute 5 grams or more of cocaine base within 1,000 feet of

a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii),

and 860(a). Daher argues that the district court clearly erred in

denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized at his home

because the police did not knock and announce their presence before

forcibly entering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3109 and the Fourth

 Case: 03-20543 Document: 0051364259 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2004
1See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 435 (5th Cir.

2002); United States v. Cantu, 230 F.3d 148, 150 (5th Cir. 2000).

2In re Missionary Baptist Foundation of America, 712 F.2d 206,

209 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum

Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).

3Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575

(1985).

4Id. at 573-74.

2

Amendment. 

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress made after a

pretrial hearing, we review the district court’s factual findings,

including its credibility choices, for clear error, and we view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.1 “A

finding of fact is clearly erroneous ‘when although there is

evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence

is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been

committed.’”2 When findings rest on the credibility of witnesses,

“even greater deference to the trial court’s findings” is

warranted.3 If the district court’s account of the evidence is

plausible in light of the record, we may not reverse it.4

Daher argues that the district court’s credibility

determination that the police knocked and announced before entering

his home was clearly erroneous. He claims that one of the

officers, Officer Pudafin, admitted on cross-examination that there

was no knock and announcement. The single question and answer on

 Case: 03-20543 Document: 0051364259 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2004
5On cross-examination, Officer Pudafin was asked whether

“anywhere in that report that I just handed back to you is it

indicated who knocked and announced or, in fact, did anyone knock

and announce that morning?” He responded “no.”

6Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573-74; United States v. Garza, 118

F.3d 278, 283 (5th Cir. 1997).

7United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2002), cert.

granted, 123 S.Ct. 1252 (2003).

8United States v. Banks, 124 S.Ct. 521 (2003).

3

which Daher relies, however, were at best ambiguous.5 Officer

Pudafin and two other officers affirmatively and clearly testified

that they knocked and yelled and then waited 15 to 20 seconds

before entering Daher’s home. The district court concluded based

on the testimony and evidence that the officers knocked and

announced before entering. The court’s account of the evidence was

plausible, and we will not second-guess the court’s credibility

determinations.6

In his brief, Daher also requested that we hold this appeal in

abeyance until the Supreme Court decides United States v. Banks.

7

The Supreme Court recently issued its decision, concluding that

police officers did not act unreasonably in waiting only 15 to 20

seconds after a single knock and announcement before forcibly

entering a defendant’s home.8 Daher has not argued on appeal, and

did not argue before the district court, that the police waited an

unreasonably brief period of time before entering his home, and

Banks is therefore inapposite. 

 Case: 03-20543 Document: 0051364259 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2004
4

Because we find that the district court did not clearly err in

refusing to suppress the evidence seized, we affirm the district

court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 03-20543 Document: 0051364259 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/11/2004