UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 97-31107
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH BEVLEY, also known as Butterfly,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(97-CR-46-ALL-T)
August 17, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth Bevley was convicted of conspiracy, bank robbery, and
using and carrying a firearm during the commission of a bank
robbery as charged in a five-count superseding indictment. Prior
to trial, Bevley unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence
seized at his residence, 2511 Freret Street. Bevley argues that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
the district court’s decision on the motion to suppress constitutes
reversible error.
In reviewing a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion
to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant, we determine
whether to apply the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule
then, if necessary, determine if probable cause existed to support
the warrant. See United States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120,
1129 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 72 (1997); United States
v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992).
An affidavit supporting the warrant must contain facts which
establish a nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence
sought. See United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1034 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 264 (1996). This affidavit
contained specific facts showing that armed robberies had been
committed using the ski masks, yellow raincoats, car keys, and
weapons listed in the warrant request; that a stolen vehicle used
in one of the robberies was turned over to Bevley in front of his
residence at 2511 Freret Street on the morning of the robbery in
which the stolen vehicle was used; that a photograph taken from a
bank security camera showed Bevley in a yellow raincoat and that
two of the car thieves identified Bevley from that photograph as
the person who had received the stolen car used in the robbery; and
that Bevley’s place of residence was verified by both the police
department computer and one of the car thieves who had identified
Bevley. The affidavit was not so devoid of facts as to render a
police officer’s reliance on the warrant to be unreasonable. The
-2-
district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
Bevley also asserts that the government failed to prove that
he committed bank robbery because the subject of count two of the
indictment, Credit Union Service Center (“CUSC”), was not a
federally insured credit union. “[B]ank assets belong to the bank
and prosecution may be under Section 2113 even though such assets
actually are in the possession of a bank employee or agent.”
United States v. Van, 814 F.2d 1004, 1006-08 (5th Cir. 1987); see
also United States v. Miller, No. 97-3165, 1998 WL 171836 (10th
Cir. Apr. 13, 1998) (affirming bank robbery conviction under § 2113
for the robbery of a CUSC in Topeka, Kansas), petition for cert.
filed (U.S. June 12, 1998) (No. 97-9496). Because the CUSC had no
deposits of its own, the stolen money was the property of the
federally insured member credit unions.
AFFIRMED.
-3-