United States v. Womack , 285 F. App'x 87 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ANTONIO WOMACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00104-JAB)
Submitted: June 13, 2008 Decided: July 7, 2008
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A. Wayne Harrison, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF A. WAYNE HARRISON,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,
United States Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Antonio Womack appeals his convictions after
pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000), and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2008). On
appeal, Womack contends the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress, as he claims that his arrest warrant was not
supported by evidence sufficient to establish probable cause.*
Womack contends the sources relied on by the police were “members
of the criminal community” who were merely seeking leniency from
the authorities in return for their information. Womack further
asserts that the statements provided by the sources were vague in
content and involved hearsay rather than first-person observations.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude the district
court did not err in denying Womack’s motion to suppress.
Legal conclusions underlying the denial of a motion to
suppress are reviewed de novo, while factual findings are reviewed
for clear error. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 429 (4th
Cir. 2006). The evidence is construed “in the light most favorable
*
The district court also denied a second motion to suppress in
which Womack contended that his post-arrest statements were made to
police in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966). However, Womack did not raise this claim in his
appellate brief; accordingly, review of this matter has been
waived. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6
(4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
to the prevailing party below.” United States v. Kimbrough, 477
F.3d 144, 147 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 154 (2007). In
order to establish probable cause adequate to obtain issuance of an
arrest warrant, an officer is only required to present enough
evidence “‘to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief
that’ an offense has been or is being committed.” Wilkes v. Young,
28 F.3d 1362, 1365 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting Brinegar v. United
States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76 (1949)). A reviewing court must look
at the “totality of the circumstances” in determining whether there
was probable cause, examining both the veracity and base of
knowledge of those sources supplying hearsay information.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). On review by an
appellate court, a magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause is
entitled to “great deference.” United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d
212, 217 (4th Cir. 2005).
Womack notes that Detective Antoine Hinson, who testified
before the magistrate judge in support of the arrest warrant, had
no knowledge regarding the reliability of his three sources.
Regardless, the statements provided by these individuals were
consistent with one another and were further corroborated by the
evidence collected in the case. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 234; see
also United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 309 (4th Cir. 2004)
(corroboration of informant’s hearsay is “important factor” in
determining probable cause). All three of the sources provided
- 3 -
similar accounts of Womack’s role in the murder of Antonio
Stimpson, as Dontae Doggett had spoken to each of the sources
individually about the shooting and admitted that both he and
Womack were the triggermen. Furthermore, one of the sources
confirmed the validity of his statements by correctly identifying
Womack and Doggett in a photo lineup and by handing over an
audiotape of Doggett speaking about his and Womack’s roles in the
murder. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 233 (doubts regarding informant’s
motives can be overcome by other indicia of reliability).
The statements provided to Detective Hinson by the three
sources were further corroborated by the evidence already collected
in this case. One source indicated that Doggett had access to a 9
millimeter handgun and a .45 caliber pistol, while Doggett admitted
to another source that he and Womack had used a 9 millimeter
handgun and a .45 caliber pistol during the shooting. These
statements are consistent with the 9 millimeter and .45 caliber
shell casings police found near Stimpson’s vehicle.
While the magistrate judge was not provided with
information regarding prior suspects or conflicting information
given by one of the eyewitnesses, mere omission of information does
not negate a finding of probable cause. Womack has failed to
demonstrate that Detective Hinson omitted “‘material facts with the
intent to make, or with reckless disregard of whether they thereby
made, the affidavit misleading.’” Miller v. Prince George’s
- 4 -
County, 475 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir.) (quoting United States v.
Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 1990)), cert. denied, 128 S.
Ct. 109 (2007). Therefore, Womack’s claim that his arrest warrant
was not supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate probable
cause is meritless.
Accordingly, we affirm Womack’s convictions. 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
- 5 -