United States v. Coleman

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40681
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODNEY ERROLL COLEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CR-175-ALL
--------------------
January 30, 2003
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodney Erroll Coleman appeals his conviction and sentence
following a conditional guilty plea to one count of possessing a
firearm while unlawfully using a controlled substance. 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(3). Coleman first argues that the district court erred
in denying his motion to suppress evidence because his consent to
search his vehicle was not given voluntarily. We assess the
voluntariness of consent under the test set forth in United

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-40681
-2-
States v. Jones, 234 F.3d 234, 242 (5th Cir. 2000). Coleman has
failed to show that the district court’s finding of voluntary
consent “was clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view
of law.” United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 439 (5th Cir.
1993); see United States v. Watson, 273 F.3d 599, 604 (5th Cir.
2001).
Coleman also argues that the district court clearly erred by
adding two offense levels for obstruction of justice pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Coleman has failed to show that the district
court’s determination that he attempted to influence the
testimony of a witness to his offense was clearly erroneous. See
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(a)); United States v. Bethley,
973 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --