United States v. Mitchell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4804
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWAYNE MCARTHUR MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge
(2:07-cr-01118-DCN-2)
Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean
Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne McArthur Mitchell pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm and
ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006). The conditional plea preserved
Mitchell’s right to appeal the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress. Mitchell was sentenced to 110 months’
imprisonment. Counsel for Mitchell has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether the district court erred in denying the
motion to suppress. Mitchell was notified of his right to file
a supplemental pro se brief but has not done so. The Government
has declined to file a reply brief. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
This court reviews the factual findings underlying a
motion to suppress for clear error, and the legal determinations
de novo. United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 280 (4th Cir.
2007). When evaluating the denial of a suppression motion, we
review the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government. United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th
Cir. 2006).
With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the
transcript of the suppression hearing, we conclude the district
2
court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Mitchell, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Mitchell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Mitchell. 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