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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20316

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

USMAN BANKOLE SANNI-SHITTU,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-371-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se with standby counsel, Usman Bankole Sanni-Shittu was

convicted in a bench trial of conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371; mail fraud, 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1341 and 2; bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2; possession of stolen mail, 18

U.S.C. §§ 1708 and 2; and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A and 2.

The district court sentenced Sanni-Shittu to an 84-month term of imprisonment.

Sanni-Shittu appeals his conviction and sentence.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 21, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20316

2

Sanni-Shittu asserts that evidence seized during a consensual search of

an apartment he occupied and statements he made to authorities during the

search should have been suppressed because his consent to the search and his

statements were involuntary. Sanni-Shittu argues for the first time on appeal

that he signed the consent forms at gunpoint and in fear of his life and that his

statements were made under similar duress. He further argues that he was not

the lessor of the apartment; the absence of a warrant was unreasonable; the

manager of the apartment complex thought the officers had a warrant; and there

were no exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search. 

Following a hearing, the district court found that Sanni-Shittu consented

to the search and that his statements were made voluntarily. Whether SanniShittu’s failure to argue in the trial court that his consent and statements were

obtained at gunpoint waived the issue, see United States v. Pope, 467 F.3d 912,

917-20 (5th Cir. 2006), or whether the claim is reviewed for plain error, see

United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 328-29 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.

Ct. 962 (2009), Sanni-Shittu has failed to rebut the district court’s determination

that he consented to the search and his statements were made voluntarily.

Consequently, we find it unnecessary to address Sanni-Shittu’s other

suppression arguments.

Sanni-Shittu argues that his arrest was not supported by probable cause.

Without citing legal authority or evidence to support the argument, he asserts

that an investigation of computer and telephone records that allegedly led

authorities to a computer located in the apartment that he occupied was a sham

and that he was arrested simply because he is Nigerian. We conclude that

Sanni-Shittu has waived this issue by failing to brief it adequately. See Yohey

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v.

Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1376 n.13 (5th Cir. 1995). Sanni-Shittu contends that

his arrest lacked probable cause because officers had no evidence that he

committed a crime when they entered the apartment. His contention ignores
No. 08-20316

3

evidence that internet tracking indicated that a computer used to open

fraudulent bank accounts was located in the apartment he occupied; the district

court’s finding that he voluntarily consented to the search and gave

incriminating statements to officers; and evidence that Sanni-Shittu was not

arrested until after the consensual search revealed incriminating items in the

apartment. The arrest was supported by probable cause. United States v.

Wadley, 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1995).

Sanni-Shittu urges that his rights under the Sixth Amendment were

violated because he was denied the right to fire his appointed attorney and

proceed with retained counsel of his choice. He argues that his decision to

represent himself was not informed and voluntary and that he was forced into

the decision because the trial court would not allow him to be represented by

counsel of his choice. After reviewing the extensive district court proceedings

concerning Sanni-Shittu’s representation, we find no violation of Sanni-Shittu’s

rights under the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Joseph, 333 F.3d 587,

589-90 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Davis, 269 F.3d 514, 518 (5th Cir. 2001).

We reject Sanni-Shittu’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that

he participated in a conspiracy. The record evidence supports the conviction of

conspiracy. See United States v. Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d 225, 234 (5th Cir.

2003). We do not address Sanni-Shittu’s arguments concerning his sentence

because he has not provided a record of the sentencing hearing or offered an

explanation for this omission from the record. United States v. Hinojosa, 958

F.2d 624, 632 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.