IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30503

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRYAN THOMAS ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:18-CR-87-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Bryan Thomas Robinson appeals his conviction for 

being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possessing 

a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), on 

grounds that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress 

evidence. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. 

* 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

FILED

April 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30503 Document: 00515373677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2020
No. 19-30503

2

Shreveport Police Corporal Rodney Medlin initiated a traffic stop on 

Robinson when he saw him operating a car without a license plate. When 

Medlin activated his emergency lights and siren, he saw Robinson bend down, 

which led Medlin to suspect that Robinson placed a gun or drugs on the 

floorboard. Corporal Michael Schulz responded as backup.

Upon approaching Robinson’s car, both officers smelled marijuana. 

Robinson admitted that he and the passenger had recently smoked marijuana, 

and he appeared to be nervous. The officers removed Robinson and the 

passenger from the vehicle. Medlin and Schulz testified that Medlin read

Robinson his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), while 

he patted him down and handcuffed him. 

As he led Robinson to his patrol car handcuffed, Medlin asked him for 

consent to search his vehicle, which he granted. The officers found an ice chest 

in the trunk of the car, which contained a firearm, ammunition, marijuana, 

ecstasy, and drug paraphernalia. Robinson admitted to Medlin that the 

firearm belonged to him. 

Robinson raises three issues on appeal. First, he argues that the district 

court clearly erred by accepting Medlin and Schulz’s testimony that Medlin 

Mirandized Robinson when that is not reflected in the recording. Robinson 

argues that the officers’ explanation that the microphone periodically 

malfunctions is pretextual for several reasons, including that other sounds are 

audible on the recording during the time in which Medlin claims to have given 

the Miranda warning. 

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Medlin Mirandized 

Robinson. Although other sounds are, as Robinson correctly notes, audible 

during the 94-second window of time in which Medlin claims to have 

Mirandized Robinson, there are gaps of silence between those sounds where a

 Case: 19-30503 Document: 00515373677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2020
No. 19-30503

3

Miranda warning could have been given if the microphone malfunctioned. In 

light of the deference given to the district court for credibility determinations 

where the judge observed live testimony, as well as the requirement to view 

the evidence most favorable to the Government as the prevailing party, the 

district court did not clearly err. See United States v. Gomez, 623 F.3d 265, 

268-69 (5th Cir. 2010). The district court’s choice between two permissible 

views of the evidence cannot be clearly erroneous. United States v. Harris, 740 

F.3d 956, 967 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Robinson’s second issue on appeal is whether the officers

unconstitutionally prolonged the stop and searched his entire car, including 

his trunk. Robinson and his passenger appeared nervous, and officers detected 

the smell of marijuana, which alone was sufficient to establish probable cause 

to search the entire vehicle, including the trunk. See United States 

v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 686-87 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Reed, 

882 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1989). Robinson has not explained how the officers’

comments that the marijuana smell appeared to stem more from Robinson and 

the passenger than the vehicle negated the probable cause to search the trunk. 

Robinson’s third issue on appeal—whether Robinson provided voluntary 

consent to search his vehicle—is unnecessary to resolve given that the officers 

had probable cause to search. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment 

denying Robinson’s motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-30503 Document: 00515373677 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2020