United States v. Gray

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4664
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT LEON GRAY,
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. (7:07-cr-00122-FL-1)
Submitted: July 20, 2010 Decided: August 20, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel J. Randall, IV, RANDALL WORTMAN, P.C., Leland, North
Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States
Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney,
Timothy Severo, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Leon Gray entered a conditional guilty plea,
pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with intent to
distribute more than five grams or more of cocaine base and an
unspecified quantity of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(2006). The district court sentenced Gray to 210 months’
imprisonment. In the plea agreement, Gray reserved the right to
challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress
drugs discovered in a rental car. Gray contends on appeal that
the district court erred in accepting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to deny his motion to suppress. We affirm.
We review the district court’s factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and the court’s
legal determinations de novo. United States v. Day, 591 F.3d
679, 682 (4th Cir. 2010). When a district court denies a
suppression motion, we review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government. United States v. Matthews, 591
F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2009). We give due regard to the
district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of
witnesses for “it is the role of the district court to observe
witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pre-trial motion
to suppress.” United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th
Cir. 2008).
2
With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the
transcript of the suppression hearing, the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, the district court’s order, and the parties’
briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in
denying Gray’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. * See United States v.
Gray, No. 7:07-cr-00122-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. May 5, 2008). 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
*
We note Gray’s argument on appeal that the district
court’s conclusion that the search of the rented vehicle was
permissible as a search incident to arrest is no longer
supportable under the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v.
Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). However, because the district
court properly concluded Gray had no legitimate expectation of
privacy in the vehicle searched and therefore no standing to
contest the search of the vehicle, it is unnecessary for us to
consider the propriety of this secondary holding.
3