Christopher Saddler appeals the district court’s order denying his Motion to Suppress. Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in denying the Motion to Suppress. Because the district court fully articulated the reasons for denying the Motion, the *528 issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its order dated February 28, 2006, 445 F.Supp.2d 862.