United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 26, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40237
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DELRICK WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:02-CR-48-2
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Delrick Williams appeals his conviction following a jury
trial for possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or
more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the
district court’s denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress.
We affirm.
Williams was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic
violation in which police discovered 331 pounds of marijuana.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40237
-2-
The evidence showed that the car had been rented in Houston
approximately four hours before the stop. Testimony showed that
it would have taken considerable time to load the marijuana into
the vehicle and then approximately two hours to reach
Nacogdoches, where the stop occurred. Williams was present when
the car was rented and was listed as an additional driver on the
rental agreement. He was hesitant and defensive in response to
questioning during the traffic stop and gave a story that
conflicted with that of the driver. Marijuana was found hidden
in the trunk of the car, but a large amount was also found
immediately behind the passenger and driver’s seat under
clothing. Williams and the driver began backing away as if to
flee when a drug dog alerted to the vehicle. We conclude that
the evidence on the whole, viewed in the light most favorable to
the verdict, supports at least a plausible inference of
Williams’s knowledge and possession. See Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d
540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337,
348-49 (5th Cir. 1993).
With respect to the suppression motion, we find no merit in
Williams’s challenge to the initial stop based on an alleged
traffic violation. The investigating officer testified that the
driver of the vehicle failed to signal when changing lanes and
when exiting onto another highway. He also indicated this
No. 05-40237
-3-
violation in his report. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S.
806, 810 (1996).
Williams argues that the officer impermissibly prolonged the
stop by questioning him and the driver before requesting a
computer records check, unduly delaying his request for the
records check, and then continuing the detention after the
records check came back negative. The questions that the officer
asked the driver and Williams were routine and within the scope
of the initial stop and took only a few minutes to complete.
See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 507-08 (5th Cir.
2004) (en banc). The questions were not impermissible because
they were asked before the records check. Id. at 511. We
conclude from a review of the transcript of the suppression
hearing that the officer relied on more than a generalized
suspicion of wrongdoing; instead, the officer’s actions were a
graduated response to emerging facts, were reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances, and did not unconstitutionally
extend Williams’s detention. See id. at 506-09.
AFFIRMED.