Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael PONTNACK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-12
Citations: 3 F. App'x 495
Docket Number: No. 99-5845
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael PONTNACK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NORRIS and CLAY, Circuit Judges, and ROSEN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 495–497

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael PONTNACK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 99-5845.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 12, 2001.
Before NORRIS and CLAY, Circuit Judges, and ROSEN, District Judge.
The Honorable Gerald E. Rosen, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Michael Pontnack, appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of the search of a motor vehicle.
Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
Because the reasoning which supports denial of the motion on the basis that probable cause existed for the search has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its discussion of probable cause, in its Memorandum and Order filed on March 12,1999.