United States v. Harris

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4896
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS JONATHAN HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (6:07-cr-00023-nkm-1)
Submitted: August 12, 2009 Decided: August 20, 2009
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, R. Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Jonathan Harris pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of possession of an unregistered
firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (2006). Harris
entered a conditional guilty plea and reserved his right to appeal
the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
We affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district
court’s legal determinations de novo. United States v. Grossman,
400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005). When a suppression motion has
been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government. Id. This court gives due regard to the district
court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses and does
not review credibility determinations. See United States v. Lowe,
65 F.3d 1137, 1142 (4th Cir. 1995). Our review of the record
convinces us that the district court did not err in denying
Harris’ motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm Harris’ conviction 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2