United States v. Waden , 53 F. App'x 303 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4187
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TRAVIS ANTONE WADEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-01-284)
Submitted: December 6, 2002 Decided: December 24, 2002
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Travis Antone Waden appeals his conviction of one count of
possession with intent to distribute 212.2 grams of cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2000). Waden pled
guilty under a conditional plea agreement and was sentenced to 144
months in prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal,
Waden argues the district court erred when it denied his motion to
suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm.
We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a
motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s legal
determinations de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690,
699 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.
1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. See United
States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). We have
reviewed the district court’s denial of Waden’s motion to suppress
the evidence seized from the search of his residence and find no
error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2