Case ID: f-appx_193/html/0228-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Carmichael SMITH, Jr., a/k/a Tiger, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-4128.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 24, 2006.
    Decided: Aug. 1, 2006.
    
      Paul G. Beers, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Edward A. Lustig, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).
   PER CURIAM:

James Carmichael Smith, Jr., pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm reserving his right to contest the district court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his person. On appeal, he contests the denial of the suppression motion. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We review a district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, this court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998). Construing the facts as required, we find no reversible error. Accordingly we affirm Smith’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED