Court Opinion

ID: 2964583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:54.93548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:57.576029
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1910

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                JONATHAN S. LEVESQUE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                      Aldrich and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________

                                 ____________________

               Jonathan R. Saxe, with whom Twomey & Sisti Law Offices were
               ________________            __________________________
          on brief, for appellant.

               David A. Vicinanzo, Assistant United States Attorney, with
               __________________
          whom Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Peter E. Papps,
               ______________                              ______________
          First Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for
          appellee.

                                 ____________________
                                    MARCH 13, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Levesque  appeals from the  denial of
                      Per Curiam.
                      __________

            his  motion  to suppress  which  challenges  the legality  of

            searches and  seizures.   Those searches and  seizures, which

            arose  initially  out of  a  routine  traffic stop,  produced

            approximately 328 pounds of  marijuana, which ultimately  led

            to  criminal charges against Levesque, said  to be the person

            for whom the marijuana was intended.  

                      Two men from New Hampshire,  one in a U-Haul  truck

            and one in a Dodge pick-up, were stopped  on a Kansas highway

            by state troopers and found to have marijuana hidden in those

            vehicles.  They  were arrested.   The driver  of the  pick-up

            truck told  the authorities  that the marijuana  was destined

            for Jonathan  Levesque.  A controlled  delivery was arranged,

            and Levesque was subsequently arrested.  Levesque pled guilty

            to  possession  of  marijuana  with   intent  to  distribute,

            reserving his right to  challenge the district court's denial

            of his motion to suppress various items  of evidence stemming

            from the stops and  searches of the U-Haul and  Dodge trucks.

            Levesque now appeals.

                      Like  the district court, we do not reach the issue

            of whether  Levesque had  standing to challenge  the searches

            and seizures at  issue.   The district court  found that  the

            challenged searches  and  seizures were  valid and  conducted

            within constitutional  limits.  We  agree and  affirm on  the

            district court's well-reasoned opinion.  Local Rule 27.1. 

                                         -2-
                                          2

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

            ON]

                            United States Court of Appeals

                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________

            No. 96-1910

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                JONATHAN S. LEVESQUE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                                         -3-
                                          3

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                      Aldrich and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Jonathan  R. Saxe,  with  whom Twomey  & Sisti  Law
                      _________________              ____________________
            Offices were on brief, for appellant.
            _______

                      David   A.   Vicinanzo,  Assistant   United  States
                      ______________________
            Attorney, with  whom Paul M. Gagnon,  United States Attorney,
                                 ______________
            and Peter  E. Papps, First Assistant  United States Attorney,
                _______________
            were on brief, for appellee.

                                 ____________________
                                    MARCH 13, 1977
                                 ____________________

                                         -4-
                                          4

                      Per Curiam.   Levesque  appeals from the  denial of
                      Per Curiam.
                      __________

            his  motion  to suppress  which  challenges  the legality  of

            searches and  seizures.   Those searches and  seizures, which

            arose  initially  out of  a  routine  traffic stop,  produced

            approximately 328 pounds of  marijuana, which ultimately  led

            to  criminal charges against Levesque, said  to be the person

            for whom the marijuana was intended.  

                      Two men from New Hampshire,  one in a U-Haul  truck

            and one in a Dodge pick-up, were stopped  on a Kansas highway

            by state troopers and found to have marijuana hidden in those

            vehicles.  They  were arrested.   The driver  of the  pick-up

            truck told  the authorities  that the marijuana  was destined

            for Jonathan  Levesque.  A controlled  delivery was arranged,

            and Levesque was subsequently arrested.  Levesque pled guilty

            to  possession  of  marijuana  with   intent  to  distribute,

            reserving his right to  challenge the district court's denial

            of his motion to suppress various items  of evidence stemming

            from the stops and  searches of the U-Haul and  Dodge trucks.

            Levesque now appeals.

                      Like  the district court, we do not reach the issue

            of whether  Levesque had  standing to challenge  the searches

            and seizures at  issue.   The district court  found that  the

            challenged searches  and  seizures were  valid and  conducted

            within constitutional  limits.  We  agree and  affirm on  the

            district court's well-reasoned opinion.  Local Rule 27.1. 

                                         -2-
                                          2

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -3-
                                          3