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

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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