United States v. Woods

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 95-5937
RONALD MAURICE WOODS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
(CR-95-7-A)
Submitted: December 12, 1996
Decided: December 23, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
G. Walter Bressler, BRESSLER, CURCIO & STOUT, P.C., Bristol,
Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney,
S. Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Maurice Woods appeals his conviction of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(1994). We affirm.
On September 15, 1994, police officers stopped Woods after they
clocked his car on radar as going seventy-four miles per hour in a
sixty-five mile per hour zone. The officers advised Woods that he had
been pulled over for speeding, and they asked for his license and reg-
istration. Woods could not find either and became increasingly ner-
vous. The officers asked Woods if he had any illegal drugs or
weapons in his car and asked if they could search his car. Woods told
them to "go ahead." Woods asserts that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search and
that the district court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence
money, a beeper, rolling papers, and an address book obtained in the
same search.
The record shows that the district court did not err in denying
Woods' motion to suppress because Woods testified that when he
gave the officers permission to search he did not object to the search
of his car. See United States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d 932, 938 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 498 U.S. 846 (1990). Further, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the other items found
in the car because it gave an adequate limiting instruction to the jury
eliminating any undue prejudice. See United States v. Russell, 971
F.2d 1098, 1104-05 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 1066(1993); United States v. Jones, 907 F.2d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 1990),
cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1029 (1991).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2