United States v. Butt ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4908
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL DONNELL BUTTS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:09-cr-00002-RAJ-FBS-1)
Submitted: February 26, 2010 Decided: March 17, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew A. Protogyrou, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY, PLC, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, Laura M. Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Donnell Butts entered a conditional guilty
plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to tamper with
a witness or informant, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 1512(a)(1)(A), (a)(3)(A), (k) (West 2008 & Supp. 2009),
conspiracy to retaliate against a witness or informant, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1513(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A) (West 2008 &
Supp. 2009), tampering with a witness or informant resulting in
death, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1512(a)(1)(A), (a)(3)(A)
and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006), retaliating against a witness or
informant resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 1513(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and use of firearm
in a drug trafficking offense or crime of violence resulting in
death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c), (j) (2006). The
district court sentenced Butts to four concurrent terms of life
imprisonment and one consecutive term of life imprisonment.
In the plea agreement, Butts reserved the right to
challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress
inculpatory statements he made to law enforcement officers after
his arrest. Butts contends on appeal that the district court
erred in denying the motion to suppress. We affirm.
We review the factual findings underlying the denial
of a motion to suppress for clear error, United States v. Blake,
571 F.3d 331, 338 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___,
2
2010 WL 58699 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2010) (No. 09-7788), which exists
where we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed,” United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d
326, 337 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
When a defendant’s suppression motion has been denied, we review
the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. See
United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 217 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 743 (2008). We also defer to the district
court’s credibility determinations. See United States v. Abu
Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct.
1312 (2009).
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
Butts’ motion to suppress. Viewed in the light most favorable
to the Government, evidence from the suppression hearing
establishes that after his arrest, Butts was handcuffed and
placed in a law enforcement vehicle. While the vehicle was en
route, Sergeant Smith orally advised Butts of his rights under
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), reading the rights from
an advice-of-rights form. Because of the handcuffs, Butts was
unable to sign the advice-of-rights form while in the vehicle.
Although Butts initially denied any knowledge of the offenses,
he agreed to cooperate and was taken to the Drug Enforcement
3
Administration’s office in Norfolk, Virginia. Butts was placed
in an interview room and signed the advice-of-rights form,
indicating that he understood his Miranda rights and wished to
speak to law enforcement officers without an attorney. Butts
then made incriminating statements concerning his participation
in the murder of a federal witness and related, attempted
murders. We find that the district court did not clearly err in
determining that Butts received Miranda warnings prior to making
his inculpatory statements.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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
4