Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hiram GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Vitela, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-17
Citations: 112 F. App'x 991
Docket Number: Nos. 04-30079, 04-30127
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hiram GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Vitela, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 991–992

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hiram GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Vitela, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 04-30079, 04-30127.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 17, 2004.
Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Elton B. Richey, Jr., Shreveport, LA, Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hiram Garcia and Jesse Vitela pleaded guilty to, and were convicted of, three counts: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846; possession with intent to distribute powdered cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Garcia and Vitela appeal their convictions.
Both contend incriminating evidence was seized during an unconstitutional search of their vehicle. In addition, Vitela maintains: his confession was unconstitutionally coerced because he was detained outside the room in which Garcia was making a statement; and, although Vitela had originally declined to give a statement, this pressured Vitela to give one in order to defend himself against any accusations Garcia might be making.
For essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his comprehensive and well-reasoned report and recommendation, as adopted by the district court on 25 March 2003, the judgments are
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.