UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
NO. 97-50048
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
VERSUS
LONNIE PRICE
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(SA-96-CR-1)
November 4, 1997
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Lonnie Price argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence taken from a vehicle parked
in front of his house, as a result of what he contends was a
nonconsensual, warrantless search.
In reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
based on live testimony at a suppression hearing, we review the
district court’s fact-findings for clear error and questions of law
de novo. United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1106 (5th Cir.
1993). All of the evidence introduced at the suppression hearing
is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.
United States v. Ponce, 8 F.3d 989, 995 (5th Cir. 1993). When the
district court enters no factual findings and no indication of the
legal theory underlying its decision to deny a motion to suppress,
we independently review the record to determine whether any
reasonable view of the evidence supports admissibility. See United
States v. Yeagin, 927 F.2d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 1991).
Our review of the record reveals that the district correctly
concluded that Price voluntarily consented to a search of the
vehicle. See United States v. Kelley, 981 F.2d 1464, 1470 (5th
Cir. 1993). Price had authority to consent to a search of the
vehicle. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974).
Furthermore, that consent extended to the search of Price’s
briefcase found in the vehicle, which contained the subject crack
cocaine. See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991).
AFFIRMED.