United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-31166
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GARY DAVID LINDSEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CR-50085-4
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gary David Lindsey appeals his conditional guilty-plea
conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50
grams or more of d-methamphetamine. He argues that the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the district court,
after hearing testimony, accepted the law enforcement agent’s
version of events over that of Lindsey and his wife, finding that
no coercion took place and that Lindsey’s confession was voluntary.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-31166
-2-
We will not disturb the district court’s findings absent clear
error. See United States v. Restrepo, 994 F.2d 173, 183 (5th Cir.
1993). If a finding is based on oral testimony at a suppression
hearing, the “clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong
since the judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses.” See United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 438 (5th
Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in
determining that the confession was voluntarily given. See id.
AFFIRMED.