IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40139
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE JAMES BANKS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:98-CR-156-ALL
--------------------
March 9, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie James Banks, Jr., was convicted by a jury of
possession of a firearm by a felon, possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, and using and carrying a firearm during and
in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. On appeal, Banks
attacks the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress the
fruits of the stop and search of the vehicle he was driving. In
reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the
district court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but
review the ultimate conclusion as to the constitutionality of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40139
-2-
law enforcement action de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517
U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Chavez-Villarreal, 3 F.3d
124, 126 (5th Cir. 1993).
The district court found, based on a videotape of the stop,
that Banks was detained for eight minutes from the stop until he
consented to the search of the vehicle. Banks makes no argument
that the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous in his
argument that he was detained “at length without probable cause
to arrest him, detain him further[,] or search the vehicle.” The
district court’s finding that the one minute that elapsed between
the completion of the computer check and the request for consent
was diminimis is essentially a finding that consent to search was
requested withing the period in which Banks reasonably could have
been detained for the traffic stop. Accordingly, there is no
constitutional problem as the detention did not exceeded the
scope of the initial traffic stop. See United States v. Dortch,
199 F.3d 193, 200, modified on denial of reh’g, 203 F.3d 356 (5th
Cir. 2000).
Banks argues that the Government failed to prove through
direct or circumstantial evidence that he knew that the drugs and
handgun were hidden in the stereo-speaker box in the trunk. The
evidence is sufficient to support Bank’s convictions because the
jury could infer that Bank’s had knowledge of the marijuana and
firearm hidden in the vehicle from the evidence produced at
trial, including Bank’s testimony. United States v. Jones, 185
F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 125
(2000).
No. 00-40139
-3-
Banks argues that he district court erred in it application
of the sentencing guidelines by increasing his offense level for
being a felon in possession of a firearm because of a prior
conviction for battery. Banks admits that he was sentenced to 18
months of imprisonment on the battery charge in question. Banks
does not argue that battery does not involve the use of physical
force against the person of another. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2K1.2(a)
and 4B1.2(a). Banks has not shown the district court erred in
counting this offense as a crime of violence and increasing his
offense level accordingly.
AFFIRMED.