United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT April 10, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60580
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICKY HOLLINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(1:04-CR-152-1)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricky Hollins appeals his jury conviction of child-pornography
possession and his sentence.
First, Hollins contends the evidence of child pornography
should have been suppressed because it was beyond the search
warrant’s scope. “We review a motion to suppress based on live
testimony at a suppression hearing for clear error, viewing
evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party”.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 282 (5th Cir. 1997), cert.
denied, 522 U.S. 1051 (1998).
A police investigator, searching for evidence of other crimes
under a valid warrant (items to be seized included electronic and
magnetic storage devices), inadvertently discovered an image of
child pornography in plain view on Hollins’ computer; he
discontinued his search until he obtained a new, valid warrant
authorizing a search for child pornography. Accordingly, the
district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress. See
id. at 282-83; see also United States v. Walser, 275 F.3d 981, 987
(10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1069 (2002).
Hollins also contends his sentence is invalid under United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because it was based on
facts not found by the jury. Post-Booker, the district court
sentenced Hollins under advisory Guidelines, pursuant to Booker,
543 U.S. at 245-46. Hollins fails to show either the district
court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or his sentence was
unreasonable. See United States v. Vargas-Garcia, 434 F.3d 345,
348-49 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 517-
19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005)).
AFFIRMED
2