United States v. Currence , 231 F. App'x 294 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5253
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00231)
Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: July 5, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David R. Lett, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg,
United States Attorney, John S. Davis, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A federal grand jury charged Kareem Jamal Currence with
possession with intent to distribute less than five grams of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and
possession with intent to distribute less than five grams of crack
cocaine within 1000 feet of an elementary school, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 860 (2000). Currence moved to suppress the crack found
in the handlebars of his bicycle on the grounds that the
warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the
search did not fall within any of the exceptions to the warrant
requirement. The district court granted the motion to suppress,
and the Government appealed. We held that the search of the
handlebars was permissible as a search incident to arrest, reversed
the district court’s ruling on the motion to suppress, and remanded
for further proceedings. United States v. Currence, 446 F.3d 554,
557-59 (4th Cir. 2006) (“Currence I”).
On remand, Currence was convicted on both counts after a
bench trial. Currence appeals his conviction, asserting that the
search violated the Fourth Amendment. He relies on the arguments
presented to the court in Currence I. The Government asserts on
appeal that Currence is precluded from challenging the validity of
the search in this appeal because it was litigated in Currence I.
We agree with the Government. In Currence I, we rejected
the claims Currence now seeks to raise in this appeal. Thus, we
- 2 -
find that Currence’s challenge to the search is barred by the
law-of-the-case doctrine and that none of the exceptions applies.
See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999)
(discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto); see also Invention
Submission Corp. v. Dudas, 413 F.3d 411, 414-15 (4th Cir. 2005)
(discussing mandate rule), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1024 (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm Currence’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
- 3 -