United States v. Robinson ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5046
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUSTICE ALLAH ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00085-NCT)
Submitted: May 10, 2007 Decided: May 14, 2007
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In 2006, Justice Allah Robinson was arrested for
participating in a drug sale. Thereafter, Robinson filed a motion
to suppress evidence gained from a related search of his residence.
The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Robinson
entered a conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(b), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).
The district court then sentenced Robinson to 188 months in prison
and five years of supervised release.
Robinson timely appealed, challenging the denial of his
motion to suppress. Robinson argued that because a tipster was
unreliable, the police improperly stopped and searched Robinson’s
vehicle. Additionally, Robinson argued that as the stop and search
supported the warrant issued to search his residence, the evidence
discovered at his residence was inadmissible at trial. After
conducting a thorough review of the record, we conclude the
district court properly denied the motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm Robinson’s convictions and
sentence. 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
- 2 -