Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizah CLARK, also known as Elijah Clark, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-03
Citations: 81 F. App'x 826
Docket Number: No. 03-60377
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizah CLARK, also known as Elijah Clark, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 826–827

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizah CLARK, also known as Elijah Clark, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-60377.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 3, 2003.
Linda Randle Anderson, Assistant US Attorney, Richard Terrell Starrett, Assistant US Attorney, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nathan Henry Elmore, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Elizah Clark appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search incident to a traffic stop. He argues that because the officer did not have probable cause for the stop, the subsequent search and seizure of evidence were illegal.
Our review of the record and the parties' arguments convinces us that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. United States v. Orozco, 191 F.3d 578, 581 (5th Cir.1999). The officer testified that he stopped Clark's vehicle on the basis of a perceived traffic violation, i.e., improper windshield tinting, creating sufficient probable cause to support the initial stop. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
Moreover, Clark does not contend that his continued detention following the determination that he was operating the vehicle without a driver's license was improper. Nor does he dispute the district court's finding that he consented to a search of his vehicle. Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.