IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40617
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NOE OCAMPO,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:99-CR-14-2
- - - - - - - - - -
March 20, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Noe Ocampo appeals his conviction and sentence on the basis
that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress
evidence obtained during a search incident to a traffic stop. He
argues that the arresting officer, Dusty Flanagan, did not have
probable cause for the stop; thus the search was illegal. Flanagan
testified at the suppression hearing that on each of three
occasions, the vehicle went almost halfway over into the shoulder
such that the white line would have “split the vehicle in half.”
He testified that the vehicle was being driven in an unsafe manner
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 00-40617
-2-
and that he was concerned that the driver was either fatigued,
sleepy, or intoxicated. Flanagan stopped the vehicle on the basis
of a traffic violation, i.e. improper lane usage, creating
sufficient probable cause to support the stop. See Whren v. United
States, 517 U.S. 806, 809 (1996); United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d
459, 463-64 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 125 (2000).
Flanagan’s stop and subsequent arrest of Ocampo was proper under
the Fourth Amendment. Jones, 185 F.3d at 463-64. The district
court did not err in denying Ocampo’s motion to suppress the
evidence obtained during the search incident to the stop of the
vehicle.
AFFIRMED.