United States v. Britain ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60692 Document: 00516323806 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 18, 2022
No. 21-60692
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
James T. Britain,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:19-CR-131-1
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
James T. Britain disregarded a roadway-safety checkpoint in
Meridian, Mississippi, and led sheriff’s officers on a brief high-speed chase
that resulted in Britain’s arrest and the discovery of a firearm. A jury
convicted him of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to, inter alia, 27 months’
imprisonment. He contends: the Government failed to establish venue in
Case: 21-60692 Document: 00516323806 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2022
No. 21-60692
the Southern District of Mississippi; and the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress the firearm.
The Government has the burden of establishing venue by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Lanier, 879 F.3d 141, 147–
48 (5th Cir. 2018). A properly preserved venue challenge, as in this instance,
is reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. Romans, 823 F.3d 299, 309 (5th Cir.
2016). The Government met its burden because, at trial, it elicited testimony
that Britain’s offense occurred in Lauderdale County, Mississippi, which lies
entirely within the Northern Division of the Southern District of Mississippi.
28 U.S.C. § 104(b)(1) (stating the Northern Division of the Southern District
of Mississippi includes Lauderdale County); cf. United States v. Madkins, 14
F.3d 277, 279 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1994) (relying on statute stating county fell
within the Eastern District of Texas to conclude venue was proper).
When reviewing denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we
“review[] factual findings for clear error and the ultimate constitutionality of
law enforcement action de novo”. United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 594
(5th Cir. 2014). “Factual findings are clearly erroneous only if a review of
the record leaves [us] with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed”. United States v. Hearn, 563 F.3d 95, 101 (5th Cir. 2009)
(citation omitted).
Britain first contends the checkpoint was unconstitutional because: its
primary purpose was for general crime control; it was overly intrusive; and
its “intensity” substantially outweighed the Government’s interest in
conducting it. But, the record shows that the checkpoint served “a legitimate
programmatic purpose closely related to the necessity of ensuring roadway
safety and problem[s] peculiar to the dangers presented by vehicles”. United
States v. Burgos-Coronado, 970 F.3d 613, 618–19 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation
omitted) (holding checkpoint permissible under Fourth Amendment), cert.
2
Case: 21-60692 Document: 00516323806 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/18/2022
No. 21-60692
denied, 141 S. Ct. 1714 (2021); see also City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S.
32, 37–38, 41–42 (2000) (differentiating between highway-safety and general
crime-control checkpoints).
Britain also contends he drove in a right-turn lane not encompassed
by the checkpoint, and the officers otherwise lacked justification to stop him.
The court, however, found that the checkpoint’s scope included the right-
turn lane, and Britain has not pointed to any evidence undermining that
factual finding. See United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005)
(stating factual finding based on live testimony given deference).Therefore,
when Britain attempted to evade the checkpoint by making a right turn, the
officers did not need reasonable suspicion to stop him. See United States v.
Hasette, 898 F.2d 994, 995 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1990) (noting, in context of Border
Patrol checkpoints, “a U-turn or a ‘turn-around’ in front of a checkpoint is
tantamount to a stop at the checkpoint itself”).
AFFIRMED.
3