IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20868
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM WATKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-825-1
--------------------
March 27, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Watkins appeals his conviction for being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search of
his automobile, and, alternatively, that the district court
abused its discretion by not conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Watkins also contends that his conviction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because of the minimal showing
necessary to establish that the firearm had a nexus with
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20868
-2-
interstate commerce. He concedes that this argument is
foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 516 (5th
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 2002 WL 233543 (U.S. Feb. 19, 2002),
but that he raises it to preserve it for Supreme Court review.
This latter argument is foreclosed.
The district court's denial of the motion to suppress is
supported by the undisputed facts set forth in Watkins' motion
and the Government's response thereto. See United States v.
Yeagin, 927 F.2d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 1991). The totality of the
circumstances supports a determination that the police officer
had probable cause to search Watkins' car for a gun, after an
eyewitness nightclub patron told the officer that Watkins had a
gun and the officer thereafter saw Watkins walk to a car and
place an object on the driver's side floorboard. See Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 (1983); United States v. Burbridge, 252
F.3d 775, 778 (5th Cir. 2001). Because there was probable cause
to search the car, Watkins' subsequent statements concerning the
gun were also admissible. Inasmuch as the relevant facts were
undisputed and Watkins has pointed to no additional evidence that
would have allowed him to meet his burden of showing that the
search violated the Fourth Amendment, the district court did not
err by not conducting an evidentiary hearing.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.