IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10488
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARK JULIAN EDMONDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CR-370-1-T
--------------------
March 13, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mark Julian Edmonds appeals his conviction for being a felon
in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). He argues that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress and in denying his motions to dismiss the
superseding indictment as the result of vindictive prosecution
and as multiplicitous, respectively.
The district court did not err in denying the motion to
suppress because the search of Edmonds’ bag was done incident to
his arrest and because the bag was in Edmonds’ immediate area of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-10488
-2-
control at the time of the arrest. See New York v. Belton, 453
U.S. 454, 460-62 (1981); United States v. Prudhome, 13 F.3d 147,
148-49 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Tellez, 11 F.3d
530, 532 (5th Cir. 1993).
The district court likewise did not err in denying the
motion to dismiss for vindictiveness because Edmonds has not
attempted to demonstrate any vindictiveness on the federal
prosecutor’s part and has not challenged the district court’s
finding that any vindictiveness on the state prosecutor’s part
was irrelevant to the instant case. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, even if it is
assumed that counts one and two of the superseding indictment
were multiplicitous, any error arising out of the district
court’s denial of Edmonds’ motion to dismiss was harmless because
he was acquitted of one of the allegedly multiplicitous counts.
See United States v. Nguyen, 28 F.3d 477, 482 (5th Cir. 1994).
The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
Edmonds’ motion for leave to file a supplemental pro se brief is
DENIED. See 5th Cir. R. 28.7.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.