Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 06- 11381

U N IT E D S T A T E S O F AM E R IC A , P la in tiff-A p p e lle e , v. B R IA N K E IT H C A S P E R , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas N o. 4: 06- C R

- 23

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: *

A fte r th is m a tt e r w a s re m a n d e db yth e S u p r e m e C o u r t, Casper v. Un i t ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 06- 11381

2 S t ate s , 129 S

. C t
. 215 6 ( 200 9) , w e m ad e a l i m i t ed r em an d f or t h e di st ri ctcourt to co n d u c t a n e v id e n tia r yh e a r in gf r o m w h ic h t o d e c id e th e q u e s tio n o f in e v ita b le d is c o v e r y , Un i t ed S t ate s v. Casper , 3 3 2 F

. A p p ’ x2 2 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (p e r c u ria m ). Th atc our tpr om pt l y c om pl i ed, i ss ui ng an or derf i ndi ng t h at t h e evi den ce s ei zed byF ortW ort h P ol i ce O f f i cer T erry Porter on M ay 11, 2005, f

r om t he ve hi c l e driven byt he def endant , B r i an K e i t h Cas pe r , w o ul d i ne vit ab l y hav e b e e n di s c o ve r e d no t w i t hs t and

i ng t he il l e ga ls e ar c h o f t he v e hi c l e i nc i de nt t o Cas pe r ’ s a r r e s t[ and t hat] [l] i ke w i se, the e vi de nc e s e i z e d f r o m Cas pe r ’ s ho m e w o ul d i ne vit ab l y hav e b e e n di s c o ve r e d. A s C asper concedes i n hi s s u pp l em en t all et t er bri ef f i l ed aft er t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t is s u e dits fin d in g s , “th e g o v e r n m en t ne edo n lys h o w ‘ are a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility ’ th a t th e e v id e n c e w o u ldh a v e b e e n d is c o v e r e db yla w fu l m e a n s . S ee Un i t ed St at e s v . Lam as , 93 0 F

. 2 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 2 (5th C i r. 19 9 1 ). ” T h e d i stri ct cou rt, i n i ts
ora lex p l a n a ti on tha t pre ced edi ts w ri tten ord er, fou n dtha t i t ’ s i n evi t able t h at [t h e of f i cers ] w ou l d h ave c on du ct ed an i n ven t ory s e ar c h a nd/o rb r o ugh tt he [ nar c o t i c - de t e c t i ng] do g i n. H e w as r i ght t he r e . As t he o f

f i c e rs ai d, i tw o ul dn’ tha ve b e e n ab i g de l ay , a nd brou gh tt h e dog i n . Th e dog w ou l d hav e i n evi t ably al ert ed, an d then t he s e ar c h w o ul d hav e pr o c e e de d e i t he r o n t hat pr o ba bl e cause of t he dogal er toron the r i ght t o se ar c h f orpurpo se s of

an i nvent or y. Thes e f i ndi ngs a r e sup po r t e d b y t he r e c o r d a nd a r e no tc l e ar ly e r r o ne o us . The
m o t i o n t o s upp r e s s w as pr o pe r l y de ni e d. A si de f r om suppre ss i on, the onl y ot heri ss ue thatC as perr ai se s on appea l i s t h e l en gth of

hi s s en t en ce. For t h e reasons expl ai n ed i n ou r i n i t i ala n d l ater

v a c a te dd e c is io n , Un i t ed S t ate s v. Casper , 5 3 6 F .3 d4 0 9 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), th e r e is
n o re v e r s ib le e r r o rinth e s e n te n c e . T h e j u d g me n to f

c o n v i c t i o n a n ds e n t e n c e i s A F F I RMED.