United States v. Odell Golden ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4942
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ODELL GENE GOLDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00026-CCE-1)
Submitted: May 31, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013
Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, T. Nick
Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Odell Gene Golden pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006). His guilty plea was conditioned on his ability to
appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence.
On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress, because the weapon was found during a
search without a warrant. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
Searches undertaken without a warrant and issued upon
probable cause are per se unreasonable under the Fourth
Amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and
well-delineated exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S.
347, 357 (1967). Two exceptions to the warrant requirement are
exigent circumstances, United States v. Turner, 650 F.2d 526,
528 (4th Cir. 1981), and consent to a search. Schneckloth v.
Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973).
Golden contends that exigent circumstances no longer
existed at the time the gun was discovered, such that the
district court should have granted his motion to suppress the
revolver found in Arnold Johnson’s apartment. When considering
the denial of a motion to suppress, we review de novo a district
court’s legal conclusions, while we review its factual findings
for clear error. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699
2
(1996); United States v. Guijon-Ortiz, 660 F.3d 757, 762 (4th
Cir. 2011). The district court noted that although exigent
circumstances allowed officers to enter Johnson’s apartment, the
gun was found following Johnson’s consent for officers to search
for the gun that Golden had fired in his apartment.
We find no clear error in the district court’s factual
finding regarding Johnson’s consent. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699.
As expressly noted by the district court, it made a credibility
determination based on the somewhat differing testimony
regarding the details of Johnson’s consent for officers to
search. We note, however, that there was no evidence indicating
Johnson did not consent for officers to find the pistol that
Golden had fired in his apartment. Moreover, we are mindful
that we must construe evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government, the prevailing party below. United States v.
Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 320 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3