Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demario Donnell SMITH, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Eugene Bradford, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-08
Citations: 222 F. App'x 391
Docket Number: No. 06-50478, 06-50541
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demario Donnell SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Eugene Bradford, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 391–393

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demario Donnell SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Eugene Bradford, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50478, 06-50541
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 8, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bertram Oliver Wood, III, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellants.
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Following the denial of a motion to suppress a firearm and cash discovered during a vehicle search (following a traffic stop), Demario Donnell Smith and Christopher Eugene Bradford entered conditional guilty pleas to bank robbery and aiding and abetting. Smith and Bradford were both sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment. They now appeal the denial of the suppression motion. They do not challenge the validity of the initial stop. In stead, they argue only that the vehicle search was improper.
Conclusions of law concerning a motion to suppress are reviewed de novo; findings of fact, for clear error. United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228, 231 (5th Cir.1999). The appellants do not challenge any findings of fact. In this case, the officer who made the stop received a lookout alert for three black males in a black Honda Civic who had just committed an armed bank robbery. Shortly thereafter, the officer observed Smith and two other black males in just such a vehicle. As the officer approached the vehicle on foot, he saw the occupant in the back seat of the vehicle move abruptly in the vehicle. Under these circumstances, any reasonably prudent officer would have feared for his safety. Thus, the protective search of the vehicle in this case did not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1051, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983); United States v. Wallen, 388 F.3d 161, 165-66 (5th Cir. 2004); United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 434 (5th Cir.1993). Since the firearm and the cash were hidden in an area of the center console that was easily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle, the officers did not exceed their authority in searching that area. We therefore uphold the district court's denial of the suppression motion.
Bradford also challenges his 96-month sentence as an unreasonable upward deviation from his guideline sentencing range of 63 to 78 months. The district court's stated reasons for the sentence imposed enable us to determine that the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support the sentence. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d, 704, 709-10 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the deviation was reasonable. Id. at 708 n. 5, 709-10. We therefore uphold the sentence imposed by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
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.