Court Opinion

ID: 9890260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 18:00:45.749678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:42.265168
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40593         Document: 00516928647             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/12/2023

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                       No. 22-40593                              October 12, 2023
                                      ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Kenneth Brandon Chasteen,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:20-CR-164-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          After midnight on June 26, 2020, officers witnessed Kenneth
   Chasteen driving erratically and speeding. They followed him to a conven-
   ience store and initiated a Terry stop in the parking lot. See Terry v. Ohio, 392
   U.S. 1 (1968). There, they saw a firearm in plain view in his vehicle and, after
   running his license, learned he was a convicted felon.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40593         Document: 00516928647               Page: 2      Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                          No. 22-40593

           Chasteen was arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He
   moved to suppress all evidence related to the Terry stop. The district court
   denied his motion and stated that the Terry stop was justified because the
   officers had reasonable suspicion he committed the crime of Driving While
   Intoxicated (DWI). Chasteen submitted a motion for reconsideration, which
   the district court denied, stating that its “decision remains unchanged.” The
   district court added that the Terry stop was also justified because the officers
   had reasonable suspicion of speeding. After a bench trial, Chasteen was con-
   victed and sentenced to 51 months imprisonment.
           Chasteen raises only one issue on appeal,1 namely, whether the district
   court erred in finding that the officers had reasonable suspicion of DWI. He
   grants that the officers had reasonable suspicion of speeding and that the dis-
   trict court found as much in its denial of reconsideration. However, he argues
   that our court should nonetheless remand to the district court to make that
   finding in the first instance because its original denial of the suppression mo-
   tion made no finding as to speeding. He emphasizes that the denial of the
   reconsideration motion said its original “decision remains unchanged.”
           Chasteen overreads that single line from the denial of reconsideration.
   Even assuming, arguendo, that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of
   DWI, we see no reason to remand for the district court to repeat its finding,
   which Chasteen has conceded, that the officers had reasonable suspicion to
   initiate the Terry stop because Chasteen was speeding.
           AFFIRMED.
           _____________________
           1
             We do not consider the possibility that Chasteen’s challenge to the district court’s
   denial of his suppression motion was not preserved due to stipulations he made as part of
   his bench trial after the district court denied his unopposed Rule 11(a)(2) conditional guilty
   plea. Based on our holistic review of the record, “we are convinced that [Chasteen]
   reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.” United
   States v. Aguilar, 973 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2020).

                                                 2