United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 6, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10523
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADAN JOAQUIN SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-156-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Adan Joaquin Sanchez pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine
with intent to distribute (Count 1) and carrying and possessing a
firearm during and in relation to and in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime (Count 2). Sanchez conditioned his guilty plea
on his reservation of his right to appeal the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the cocaine and
firearm, which was discovered during a search of his car. He was
sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment on each count, to run
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-10523
-2-
consecutively, four years of supervised release on each count, to
run concurrently, and a $200 special assessment.
Sanchez argues on appeal that evidence of the cocaine and
firearm should have been suppressed because police officers
exceeded the scope allowed under the inventory exception to the
search warrant requirement when they searched his car’s air bag
compartment without a warrant after a canine had alerted to that
area of the car during the inventory search. He contends that
after the canine alert, officers should have sought a search
warrant to search the air bag compartment.
Because Sanchez did not raise this issue in his motion to
suppress or at his suppression hearing, it is reviewed for plain
error. See United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 158
(5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1022 (2006). Sanchez
has not provided any authority addressing the issue of whether
police must obtain a warrant to search for contraband if probable
cause to conduct such a search arises during an inventory search.
Therefore, Sanchez has not shown that the district court made an
error that was clear under the law at the time of the trial, and
thus he has not shown that the district court plainly erred in
denying his motion to suppress. See United States v. Hull, 160
F.3d 265, 271 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.