United States v. Murphy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4634
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JENNIFER MURPHY,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge; Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-
cr-00012-REP)
Submitted: March 18, 2009 Decided: April 9, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald M. Barley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Norman
Scott Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richard
Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jennifer Murphy appeals her convictions by a jury of
possession of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (2006),
possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 5861(d) (2006), and maintaining a place for the purpose of
distributing controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 856 (2006); and her sentence of forty-one months of
imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the district court properly denied Murphy’s motion to suppress
evidence. * Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
On appeal from a district court’s denial of a motion
to suppress, the district court’s factual findings are reviewed
for clear error and the legal determinations are reviewed de
novo. See United States v. Buckner, 473 F.3d 551, 553 (4th Cir.
2007). Under a clear error standard of review, this court will
reverse only if “left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Stevenson, 396
F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005)(quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City,
*
Murphy was informed of her right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so.
2
470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). It is well-settled that this court
will give particular deference to a district court’s credibility
determinations for “it is the role of the district court to
observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pre-trial
motion to suppress.” United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210,
232 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d
1161, 1169 (4th Cir. 1995)). Finally, where, as here, the
district court denies a motion to suppress, this court reviews
the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government.
United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006).
The district court, after hearing the evidence at the
suppression hearing and a subsequent hearing, determined that
Murphy consented to the search. “Absent compelling evidence to
the contrary, this Court declines to overturn a factual
determination founded on witness demeanor and credibility.”
United States v. Locklear, 829 F.2d 1314, 1317 (4th Cir. 1987)
(citing United States v. Wolf, 813 F.2d 970, 975 (9th Cir.
1987)). The record does not reveal compelling evidence contrary
to the district court’s credibility determination, and
therefore, Murphy’s claim fails.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We
remand to the district court for correction of the first page of
3
the written judgment to reflect that the offense in Count Two,
possession of cocaine, is a misdemeanor offense.
This court requires that counsel inform Murphy, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Murphy requests a petition
be filed, but counsel believes 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 Murphy.
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 AND REMANDED
4