United States v. Adams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4993
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEONTRAYVIA ADAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:07-cr-00006-FL)
Argued: October 28, 2009 Decided: May 14, 2010
Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Jane R. ROTH, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished opinion. Senior Judge Roth
wrote the opinion, in which Judge Michael and Senior Judge
Hamilton joined.
ARGUED: Paul K. Sun, Jr., ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jason Harris Cowley, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
ROTH, Senior Circuit Judge:
Deontrayvia Adams appeals his convictions for marijuana
possession and for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and
we have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291.
Adams contends that the district court abused its
discretion when, after the court’s deadline for pre-trial
motions had passed, it denied his right to file a motion to
suppress. He also argues that his original trial counsel’s
failure to timely file the motion constituted ineffective
assistance of counsel, that the District Court violated his
Confrontation Clause rights by limiting cross-examination of key
witnesses, and that the District Court improperly classified him
as an Armed Career Criminal. We agree with him on the issue of
the motion to suppress, but we find the other three contentions
to be without merit.
Adams filed his untimely suppression motion well before the
scheduled trial date; an evidentiary hearing to consider the
motion would not have prejudiced the government. See United
States v. Chavez, 902 F.2d 259 (4th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we
will order a limited remand to the district court for an
evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. If the district
court grants the motion, it will enter its order suppressing the
3
evidence in question, vacate the conviction, and award a new
trial. If the court denies the motion, the conviction will not
be set aside by the district court and we will resume
jurisdiction. See United States v. Campbell, 945 F.2d 713, 716
(4th Cir. 1991).
For the reasons stated above, we VACATE the conviction and
grant a LIMITED REMAND of this case for a hearing on the motion
to suppress, with further action consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4