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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. ANTHONY CABANISS, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:05-CR-80-1
Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Anthony Cabaniss pled guilty to conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C), but reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of three motions to suppress. We affirm. I Captain Palmer ofthe Mississippi Bureau ofNarcotics received a tip from
a confidential informant that Jeremy Emerson was dealing marijuana and United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 7, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60400

2 storing marijuana in a camper on a relative’s property. The informant further stated that Emerson’s supplier, Cabaniss, was soon going to deliver drugs in a white truck with Oklahoma license plates. Palmer commenced surveillance of Emerson’s apartment, and a truck matching this description soon arrived. After the truck left, Palmer alerted Mississippi Highway Patrol Trooper George that a white truck with Oklahoma plates was in the area and was suspected oftransporting marijuana. Palmer instructed George to stop the truck if it violated any traffic laws. George spotted the truck and initiated a stop for the stated purpose of issuing a citation for traveling 70 miles per hour in a 55 mile-per-hour zone. George noticed that the driver, Cabaniss, smelled of alcohol. George did not have a portable intoxylizer test with him, and because it was raining, George could not administer a field sobriety test. He decided to take Cabaniss to the police station for an intoxylizer test. Because neither of Cabaniss’s passengers had driver’s licenses, George called for the truck to be towed. A tow truck arrived and transported the truckto a nearby service station. While at the station, two officers brought drugsniffing dogs to test the truck, and a third officer performed an inventory search—all without a search warrant. The inventory search revealed a small amount of marijuana in the truck’s cab. Meanwhileat thesheriff’soffice, Cabaniss passed the intoxylizer test. But when Palmer began asking Cabaniss about his affairs that day, Cabaniss provided some responses that were inconsistent and suspicious, and others that corroborated information a confidential informant had given Palmer about Cabaniss. Palmer secured and executed a search warrant for Emerson’s camper. The search uncovered approximately 35 pounds of marijuana. Four days later, officers received a confidential tip that additional drugs were located in Cabaniss’s impounded truck. They performed a warrantless search and found methamphetamine in a plastic container inside the truck’s breather.No. 07-60400

1 See United States v. Muniz-Melchor, 894 F.2d 1430, 1433-34 (5th Cir. 1990). 3 Cabaniss was charged with conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841 (b)(1)(C); conspiracy topossessc ocaine hydrochloride with intent to distribute, in violation of21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(C); and possession ofmethamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(A). Hefiled three motionstosuppress. The district court held a suppression hearing and denied each motion. Thereafter, Cabaniss pled guilty to Count 1 but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motions. The district court sentenced Cabaniss to 84 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. Cabaniss pursues this appeal, claiming that the district court erred in denying his suppression motions.

II Cabaniss’s motionstosuppress related tothreeallegedly unconstitutional acts by the police. The first motion claimed that the initial stop was unconstitutional. Cabaniss argued in the second motion that he was unconstitutionally detained after the stop. In the third motion, Cabaniss claimed that the second truck search was unconstitutional. For the first and second motions, Cabanissclaimsthedistrict court should havesuppressed three pieces of evidence: (1) the small amount of marijuana found in the cab of his truck, (2) the methamphetamine found in the breather of his truck, and (3) the approximately 35 pounds of marijuana found in Emerson’s camper. For the third motion, he argues that the court should have suppressed only the drugs found in his truck. When a district court denies a motion to suppress evidence, we review its factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo
. 1 We mayNo. 07-60400

2 See F ED
. R. C RIM
. P. 52(a).

3 United Statesv. Willingham, 310 F.3d 367, 372 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Aucoin, 964 F.2d 1492, 1499 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).

4 See F ED
. R. A PP
. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (stating that the appellant’s brief must contain “citations to the authorities . . . on which the appellant relies”). 4 correct an error unless it is harmless. 2 “‘In the context of suppression of evidence, the test for harmless error is whether the trier of fact would have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the evidence had been suppressed.’”3 The count to which Cabaniss pled guilty only involved the 35 pounds of marijuana found in Emerson’s camper. If the district court had suppressed the other drugs, Cabaniss’s guilty plea and the marijuana found in the camper would have demonstrated his guilt on Count 1 beyond a reasonabledoubt. Thus, any error in failing to suppress the other drugs was harmless. We therefore affirm the district court with regard to that evidence. Furthermore, assuming for thesake ofargument that Cabaniss’sstop and detention were unconstitutional, Cabaniss inadequately briefed his claim that,
as a result, the district court should have suppressed the marijuana found in Emerson’s camper. Cabaniss conceded at oral argument that he lacks standing to challenge the camper search. His only complaint is that “Captain Jeff Palmer

. . . made the facts surrounding the initial stop and the information gained there-from a major portion” ofthe affidavit he used to secure the search warrant for the camper. Cabaniss does not cite any law or facts to support this claim. It is therefore waived. 4 Even ifwe were to consider this argument, our case lawand the record do not support Cabaniss’s suppression argument. Under our “independent source” jurisprudence, a lawful search supported by a warrant is deemed to result from
a source independent of a prior Fourth Amendment violation if (1) the policeNo. 07-60400

5 See United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223, 235 (5th Cir. 2002). 5 would have sought a warrant even without the violation, and (2) the warrant would have been supported by probable cause ifthe supporting affidavit had not contained information obtained from the prior violation. 5 The search warrant
was primarily supported by a confidential informant’s tip that Emerson was storing drugs in the camper. The tip predated the allegedly unconstitutional seizure and detention. The affidavit used to obtain the warrant indicated that the informant had been reliable in the past and explained that the police had corroborated numerous details of this particular tip apart from any fruit of the allegedly unconstitutional seizure and detention. Hence, even if we were to reach this issue, we would conclude that the search was based on an independent source. * * * Cabaniss’s conviction is AFFIRMED.