United States v. Gunter

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4780
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FITZROY GUNTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR-
01-514-RDB)
Submitted: April 19, 2004 Decided: April 29, 2004
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Daniel W. Stiller, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, David I. Salem, Barbara
S. Skalla, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Fitzroy Gunter appeals his convictions for unlawful
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), marijuana possession with intent to
distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and
aiding and abetting marijuana possession with intent to distribute,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000).
On appeal, Gunter asserts the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence,
based on the circumstances of his consent to the search. We review
a district court’s legal conclusions underlying a suppression
determination de novo, and its factual determinations for clear
error. United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir.
2002).
First, Gunter asserts his consent to the search of his
residence exposed him only to liability for violations of state
law, not federal law. This argument is meritless. See generally
United States v. Boone, 245 F.3d 352, 362 (4th Cir. 2001); see also
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991).
Second, Gunter asserts his consent resulted from a
custodial interrogation that took place before the police advised
him of his rights. The district court rejected Gunter’s assertion
based on testimony from the arresting police officer, and the
court’s credibility determination is not subject to appellate
- 2 -
review. See, e.g., United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067
(4th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we affirm Gunter’s convictions and sentence.
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -