United States v. Nicholson ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4959
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JEVON RAYNARD NICHOLSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00200-TDS-1)
Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A. Wayne Harrison, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF A. WAYNE HARRISON,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United
States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jevon Raynard Nicholson appeals his conviction and
210-month sentence after entering a conditional guilty plea to
one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 &
Supp. 2010). Nicholson asserts that the district court erred
when it denied his motions to suppress the fruits of a police
search on his vehicle. Because we disagree, we affirm the
district court’s judgment.
In reviewing the district court’s denial of
Nicholson’s suppression motions, we review the district court's
factual determinations for clear error and any legal
determinations de novo. United States v. Kelly, 592 F.3d 586,
589 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3374 (2010). Because
the district court denied Nicholson’s motions, we construe the
evidence “in the light most favorable to the government.” Id.We have reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and
have considered the parties’ arguments and discern no error in
the district court’s denial of Nicholson’s suppression motions.
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
2