United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 6, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40062
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY LAMAR POINTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-83-1
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Lamar Pointer appeals from his conditional guilty
plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, wherein he
reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to
suppress. Pointer argues that the warrantless search of the
vehicle he was driving violated his Fourth Amendment rights
because he was detained beyond the scope of the initial traffic
stop and, additionally, his consent to search the vehicle was
involuntary. We review the district court’s factual findings for
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40062
-2-
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Cantu, 230 F.3d 148, 150 (5th Cir. 2000).
Sgt. Greg Fountain’s questioning of Pointer regarding facts
unrelated to the initial traffic stop prior to initiation of the
computer check of Pointer’s license was not a per se Fourth
Amendment violation. See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500,
507-08 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Moreover, Fountain’s discovery
during the legitimate questioning of Pointer and his passenger,
Pechoka Sanders, of specific facts that supported a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity rendered the length of the
detention reasonable under the circumstances to resolve such
suspicion. See id. at 511-12.
With regard to Pointer’s consent to the search of the
vehicle, the district court’s finding that Pointer’s consent was
voluntarily was not clearly erroneous in light of the record as a
whole. United States v. Zucco, 71 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir. 1995).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that the district court erred in
finding that Pointer’s custodial status weighed in favor of a
finding of voluntariness, no one factor is determinative, and the
district court’s findings that an absence of coercive police
tactics, Pointer’s cooperation, and his education and
intelligence weighed in favor of a finding of voluntariness were
not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d
193, 201 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.