United States v. East , 324 F. App'x 237 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-4866
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    RUSSELL A. EAST,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
    Judge. (5:07-cr-00060-gec-jgw-1)
    Submitted:    March 26, 2009                 Decided:   April 28, 2009
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Andrea Harris,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell,
    Research and Writing Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
    Appellant.   Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Ryan L.
    Souders,   Assistant   United States   Attorney,  Harrisonburg,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Russell    A.     East     was       convicted        and   sentenced      to
    forty-six months in prison after entering a conditional guilty
    plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of
    
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g) (2006).                East’s guilty plea was conditioned
    on his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his
    motion    to    suppress       the    firearm       seized      by   police    during    the
    search    of     his    home.        On   appeal,        East    challenges      only    the
    district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.                              We affirm
    the district court’s judgment.
    This     court    reviews        the      district      court’s       factual
    findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and
    the district court’s legal determinations de novo.                             See United
    States v. Gray, 
    491 F.3d 138
    , 143-44 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal
    citation omitted), cert. denied, 
    128 S. Ct. 1226
     (2008).                              When a
    suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in
    the    light     most    favorable        to       the   Government.           See    United
    States v. Uzenski, 
    434 F.3d 690
    , 704 (4th Cir. 2006).                                   With
    these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of
    the suppression hearing and the parties’ briefs, we conclude
    that the district court did not err in denying East’s motion to
    suppress.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
    We    dispense    with    oral       argument       because      the   facts    and    legal
    2
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-4866

Citation Numbers: 324 F. App'x 237

Judges: Traxler, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 4/28/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024