UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 01-20099
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
HOWARD E. EAST,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(H-00-CR-518-ALL)
January 8, 2002
Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Defendant-Appellant, Howard E. East (East), appeals from the
district court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on his
motion to suppress and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his conviction. East was charged by indictment with possessing a
firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of 18
1
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). East filed a motion to suppress
the firearm, and a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds
that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) was unconstitutional both on its face and
as applied to East. The district court denied both motions without
a hearing.
Thereafter, East filed a motion to reconsider the denial of
the motion to suppress and to set an evidentiary hearing on the
motion. East then proceeded to a stipulated bench trial, after
which the district court found him guilty as charged in the
indictment. The district court sentenced East to serve 24 months
in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and a three-year term of
supervised release. In addition, the court imposed the mandatory
$100 special assessment, which was waived because East was unable
to pay it.
We realize that evidentiary hearings are not granted as a
matter of course. Rather, these hearings are required only if
there are disputed material facts "necessary to the decision of the
motion." FED.R.CRIM.P. 41(c); United States v. Dean, 100 F.3d 19,
21 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d
733, 737 (5th Cir. 1983)). After fully considering the respective
parties' briefing on the issues, carefully reviewing the entire
record, and hearing oral arguments in this case, we find that East
has sufficiently alleged that there are disputed material facts
necessary to the resolution of his motion to suppress. Therefore,
2
we VACATE the district court's conviction of East and the sentence
imposed upon him, and we REMAND for an evidentiary hearing
concerning East's motion to suppress the firearm.
3