United States of America v. Gregory Hackett

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-1218
United States of America
v.
Gregory Hackett,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00616)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1
February 2, 2006
Before: MCKEE, SMITH AND VAN ANTWERPEN,
Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: March 27, 2006)
OPINION
MCKEE, Circuit Judge
Gregory Hackett appeals the sentence he received as a career offender under 18
U.S.C. § 924(e) after entering a conditional guilty plea to the charge of illegal possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). For the reasons
that follow, we will affirm.
Since we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need
not reiterate the factual or procedural background. Hackett’s only argument on appeal is
that the district court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress physical evidence

-- 1 of 2 --

2
that was seized during a traffic stop after police noticed that he was driving a car that had
an expired Pennsylvania registration plate.
Hackett’s challenge to the suppression motion requires only the briefest discussion.
The evidence at the suppression hearing established that Hackett was driving with an
expired Pennsylvania registration plate on his car, and the ensuing computer check
revealed that the plate had been issued for a car other than the one Hackett was driving.
Accordingly, police were clearly justified in investigating. Since they could investigate
further, they were also justified in ordering Hackett out of the car for their own protection
during the brief detention required for that investigation. See United States v. Moorefield,
111 F.3d 10, 13-14 (3 Cir. 1997). The record also supports the district court’srd
conclusion that once out of the car, police were justified in seizing the weapon that the
defendant was ultimately convicted of possessing. See, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S.
106, 109 (1977) (per curiam). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence
entered on January 19, 2005, will be affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --