Case ID: f-appx_30/html/0266-01.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. Cecil D. DUMAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4721.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2002.
    Decided March 14, 2002.
    Reginald M. Barley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Cecil Dee Dumas, Jr., was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West. 1999) and sentenced to thirty-eight months’ imprisonment. Dumas asserts the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress narcotics allegedly obtained during an illegal search and seizure. We affirm.

We review a district court’s factual findings underlying its denial of a motion to suppress for clear error, while reviewing its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992). In addition, in reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998). Under these standards, we conclude the district court properly denied Dumas’ motion to suppress the evidence for the reasons stated in its June 12, 2001 order.

Accordingly, we affirm Dumas’ 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.