United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40356
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL TRENT NAIL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CR-34-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Trent Nail appeals his conditional guilty-plea
conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He
argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to
suppress because the warrantless entry onto his property by
sheriff’s deputies violated the Fourth Amendment and because the
warrantless seizure of the firearm was not permissible under the
plain view doctrine.
The “standard of review for a motion to suppress based on live
testimony at a suppression hearing is to accept the trial court’s
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
factual findings unless clearly erroneous or influenced by an
incorrect view of the law.” United States v. Alvarez, 6 F.3d 287,
289 (5th Cir. 1993). We view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party and will not second-guess the
district court’s findings as to the credibility of witnesses.
United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 282-83 (5th Cir. 1997). We
review questions of law de novo. United States v. Paige, 136 F.3d
1012, 1017 (5th Cir. 1998).
Analysis of the four pertinent factors reveals that the entry
of Panola County Sheriff’s Deputies Ronnie Endsley and Adam Jones
onto Nail’s property and their subsequent approach to the door of
his residence was lawful under the open fields doctrine. See
United States v. Thomas, 120 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 1997).
Following a consensual search of Nail’s residence, Deputy Endsley
observed the firearm under Nail’s residence while the deputies were
leaving. Deputy Endsley lawfully observed the pistol in plain
view. As the incriminating character of the firearm was readily
apparent, and Deputy Endsley was legally on the curtilage of Nail’s
residence when he made the seizure, the seizure of the firearm was
permissible under the plain view doctrine. See Paige, 136 F.3d at
1023-24. The subsequent seizure of the holster and shell casings
from Nail’s residence was also permissible under the plain view
doctrine because the objects were in plain view, their
incriminating character was readily apparent, and the deputies were
lawfully in Nail’s residence executing an arrest warrant when the
2
seizure was made. See United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 411-12
(5th Cir. 1998). The district court therefore correctly denied
Nail’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
3