eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2008-09

United States v. Dagnan , 293 F. App'x 205 ( 2008 )


Menu:
 
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4116
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT GERALD DAGNAN, a/k/a Gerald Robert Dagnan,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.   James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (2:06-cr-00002-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted:    August 29, 2008             Decided:   September 16, 2008
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell,
Research and Writing Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant.
Julie C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Zachary T. Lee,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Dagnan appeals his convictions on five counts
relating   to   the   manufacture      and   possession     with    intent   to
distribute methamphetamine.           Dagnan contends that the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to
an officer, allegedly without Miranda v. Arizona,
    384 U.S. 436
    (1966) warnings, based upon a credibility finding.                  Finding no
error, we affirm.
We   review    the    district     court’s     factual     findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district
court’s legal determinations de novo.            Ornelas v. United States,
    517 U.S. 690
    , 699 (1996); United States v. Rusher,
    966 F.2d 868
    ,
873 (4th Cir. 1992).     The evidence is construed in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party below. United States v. Seidman,
    156 F.3d 542
    , 547 (4th Cir. 1998).
Dagnan contends that the district court erred in finding
that he was given Miranda warnings and there was no basis to credit
the officer’s testimony that he gave Dagnan Miranda warnings over
his own testimony that none were given. Dagnan particularly points
to the evidence that he was not asked to sign a Miranda waiver and
that the officer did not have his badge case with the warning card,
which the officer said he always uses to advise arrestees of their
Miranda rights, with him in court.               Dagnan contends that the
district   court   did   not   give   specific    reasons   to     support   its
2
credibility determination, such as a conflict in testimony or
demeanor of the witnesses.
This court does not “weigh the evidence or review the
credibility of the witnesses.”     United States v. Wilson,
    118 F.3d 228
    , 234 (4th Cir. 1997).    Here, there is not any reason appearing
on the record to disturb the court’s credibility finding.             The
district court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, listen
to their testimony, and was in the best position to make the
credibility finding.    Based on this determination, the district
court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm the 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