UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
___________________________
No. 95-50872
Summary Calendar
___________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
BARRY YETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(A-95-CR-33)
____________________________________________________
October 22, 1996
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Barry Yett appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
to suppress evidence discovered during a search conducted pursuant
to a search warrant for Buck’s Automotive. Yett contends that
officers conducting the search knew or should have known that the
building designated as Buck’s Automotive was a multiple-business
building and that their search of the entire building violated his
rights under the Fourth Amendment.
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the
district court’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly
erroneous and review de novo the ultimate determination of
reasonableness. United States v. Chavez-Villarreal, 3 F.3d 124,
126 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Jenkins, 46 F.3d 447, 451
(5th Cir. 1995). The district court made specific findings, based
in part on the credibility of the witnesses, that there was no
evidence that two separate businesses were housed in the building
and that Yett failed to present any evidence to persuade the
district court that the agents knew, or should have known, about
the existence of a separate business either prior to or during the
execution of the warrant. Yett has failed to demonstrate that the
district court’s findings were clearly erroneous. Based on these
findings, we agree with the district court’s determination that the
officers acted reasonably and in good faith in obtaining and
executing the warrant in question. Accordingly, the order of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
2