IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-20026
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID MELCHOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CR-279-1
_________________________________________________________________
November 15, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Melchor appeals his conviction of possession with the
intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress evidence because (1) the police’s warrantless search of
his home was not justified by exigent circumstances, (2) the
warrantless seizure of certain packages inside his home was not
justified under the “plain view” doctrine or by his consent, and
(3) the warrantless search of the packages was not justified by
their inherently incriminating character or his consent. Melchor
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
also argues that the district court erred in increasing his base
offense level by two levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1),
for possessing a firearm during a drug offense.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and
conclude that the district court did not err in denying Melchor’s
motion to suppress evidence. The police’s warrantless search of
his home was justified by exigent circumstances. See United States
v. Howard, 106 F.3d 70, 76-77 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v.
Rico, 51 F.3d 495, 501 (5th Cir. 1995). The police’s warrantless
seizure of certain packages inside his home was justified under the
“plain view” doctrine. United States v. Williams, 41 F.3d 192,
196-97 (5th Cir. 1994). The police’s warrantless search of the
packages was justified because their contents were a foregone
conclusion. See id. at 197-98.
The district court also did not err in increasing Melchor’s
base offense level by two levels for possessing a firearm during a
drug offense. United States v. Vasquez, 161 F.3d 909, 912 (5th
Cir. 1998). The judgment of the district court is
A F F I R M E D.
2