United States v. Withrow , 22 F. App'x 340 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                             No. 01-4653
    ROSS MICHAEL WITHROW,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
    John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-01-58)
    Submitted: December 10, 2001
    Decided: January 7, 2002
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Mary Lou Newberger, Acting Federal Public Defender, George H.
    Lancaster, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney,
    Steven I. Loew, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    2                     UNITED STATES v. WITHROW
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Ross Michael Withrow pled guilty to possession of an unregistered,
    altered shotgun in violation of 
    26 U.S.C. §§ 5861
    (d), 5871 (1994),
    conditioned upon his right to appeal the district court’s ruling on his
    motion to suppress evidence of the shotgun. For the reasons to follow,
    we affirm.
    We agree with the district court that West Virginia State Trooper
    Larry O’Bryan’s seizure of the loaded shotgun was allowed under the
    Fourth Amendment’s officer safety exception. See Maryland v. Buie,
    
    494 U.S. 325
    , 334 (1990); United States v. Bernard, 
    757 F.2d 1439
    ,
    1443 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Baker, 
    577 F.2d 1147
    , 1152
    (4th Cir. 1978). We do not find that the district court’s factual find-
    ings regarding the seizure were clearly erroneous or that the court’s
    decision to deny the motion to suppress was error. See United States
    v. Rusher, 
    966 F.2d 868
    , 873 (4th Cir. 1992).
    Accordingly, we affirm Withrow’s conviction. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4653

Citation Numbers: 22 F. App'x 340

Judges: Michael, Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 1/7/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024