United States v. Crandle

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7618
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIUS A. CRANDLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,
Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00137-JBF-JEB-1; 4:08-cv-
00111-JBF)
Submitted: March 9, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demetrius A. Crandle, Appellant Pro Se. Scott W. Putney,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Crandle appealed from the district court’s
order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion.
We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of
whether Crandle’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
file a motion to suppress. We then remanded for an evidentiary
hearing and factual and legal findings. The district court held
a hearing, made the requested findings, and then returned the
case to this court. Neither party has challenged the district
court’s findings on remand.
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
order on remand, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the denial of Crandle’s § 2255 motion for the reasons
stated by the district court. United States v. Crandle, No.
4:06-cr-00137-JBF-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. filed July 26 & entered
July 28, 2010). 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