Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher MONTES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-23
Citations: 112 F. App'x 1002
Docket Number: No. 03-50921
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher MONTES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 1002–1002

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher MONTES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-50921.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 23, 2004.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ronald P. Guyer, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Montes was convicted, pursuant to his conditional guilty plea, of one charge of possession of five kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced Montes to 121 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. Montes appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. Montes argues that the district court erred in determining both that the officials' search of his bags did not exceed that of the private parties and that he had abandoned these bags.
Our review of the record shows that the district court did not err in determining that the governmental search of Montes's bags was constitutionally permissible because it did not exceed the search conducted by private individuals. See United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 464 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Grimes, 244 F.3d 375, 383 (5th Cir.2001). Because this determination provides a sufficient basis to uphold the district court's denial of Montes's motion to suppress, there is no need to consider the parties' remaining arguments. See United States v. Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d 753, 758 (5th Cir.1999). The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.