Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Vermon KELLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-04
Citations: 268 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: Nos. 07-40514, 07-40515
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Vermon KELLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 268
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Vermon KELLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 07-40514, 07-40515
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 4, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vermon Kelley appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of six grams of cocaine base. Kelley also appeals the district court's revocation of his supervised release that had been imposed in connection with a prior conviction. Kelley argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress a post-arrest statement that he made to law enforcement officials regarding his possession of firearms because he was not Mirandized before he made the statement. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
After Kelley was handcuffed and arrested and before he was Mirandized, Kelley told a police officer where firearms could be located in his residence in response to the officer's question. Because the officer's question was based on his concern about the safety of the officers on the scene and before the officers had completed a protective sweep of the residence, the district court did not err in denying Kelley's motion to suppress. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 653, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984); Fleming v. Collins, 954 F.2d 1109, 1112-14 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc). 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.