Court Opinion

ID: 9384176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-01 00:00:43.620759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.142361
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30278    Document: 00516697030       Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/31/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                              ____________                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                No. 22-30278                            FILED
                              Summary Calendar                    March 31, 2023
                              ____________                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                        Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                         Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                    versus

   Christopher A. Bernard,

                                                      Defendant—Appellant,

                           consolidated with
                             _____________

                               No. 22-30279
                             _____________

   United States of America,
                                                         Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                    versus

   Christopher Antrell Bernard,
                                          Defendant—Appellant.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeals from the United States District Court
                    for the Western District of Louisiana
                  USDC Nos. 5:20-CR-139-1, 5:08-CR-303-1
                 ______________________________
Case: 22-30278         Document: 00516697030             Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                         No. 22-30278
                                       c/w No. 22-30279

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Christopher Antrell Bernard was sentenced within the guidelines
   range to 262 months in prison after pleading guilty to possessing a firearm in
   furtherance of drug trafficking. He appeals, challenging the denial of a
   motion to suppress and raising a claim of sentencing error. Bernard also
   appealed the judgment revoking his supervised release in a separate matter.
   However, because he does not brief any challenge to the revocation or the
   revocation sentence, he has abandoned those issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
   F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
          In considering the denial of a motion to suppress, this court reviews
   factual findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. United States
   v. Reyes, 963 F.3d 482, 487 (5th Cir. 2020). Bernard argues that the
   magistrate judge and the district court should not have credited the testimony
   of two police officers that they detected a strong odor of marijuana near his
   car. The question for this court is not whether it believes the officers or even
   whether it finds their testimony plausible. See United States v. Casteneda, 951
   F.2d 44, 48 (5th Cir. 1992). “Rather, the question is whether . . . the
   witness[es] testified to something that physical laws tell us could not have
   happened.” Id. Because Bernard does not show that the officers attested to
   impossibilities, he fails to show clear error. See Reyes, 963 F.3d at 487.
          Bernard’s remaining argument is that the district court explained his
   sentence inadequately by not addressing his arguments for a downward
   variance. As he acknowledges, our review is for plain error because he failed
   to raise this issue at sentencing. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256,
   259 (5th Cir. 2009). To establish plain error, a defendant must show (1) an

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2
Case: 22-30278      Document: 00516697030         Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                    No. 22-30278
                                  c/w No. 22-30279

   error (2) that is clear or obvious and (3) that affected his substantial rights.
   Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). The record reflects that
   the district court saw no reason to vary from the guidelines range despite
   Bernard’s arguments, which it acknowledged. The court also referred to its
   consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including Bernard’s
   personal characteristics and what the court described as his extensive
   criminal history.   It is not clear or obvious that this explanation was
   insufficient, and Bernard accordingly fails to make the requisite showing. See
   Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the district court are
   AFFIRMED.

                                          3