United States v. Hailey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4827
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BOBBY RAY HAILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-05-7)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William L. Osteen, Jr., ADAMS & OSTEEN, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Kearns
Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Ray Hailey, reserving his right to appeal the
district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, pled guilty to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000), possession of firearms in
commerce after felony conviction, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1)
(2000), and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). He was sentenced to 140 months
of imprisonment. On appeal, Hailey asserts the district court
erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his
vehicle. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
This court reviews the factual findings underlying a
motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s legal
determinations de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S.
690, 699 (1996). When a suppression motion has been denied, this
court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government. See United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th
Cir. 1998). With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the
transcript of the suppression hearing and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion
to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -