Case ID: f-appx_404/html/0757-01.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. Branden Altomorre WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-4278.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 15, 2010.
    Decided: Dec. 10, 2010.
    
      Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Ronald M. Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Joseph D. Platania, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Branden Altomorre White pled guilty to possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (2006). He reserved the right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.

In reviewing the district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, this court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its legal determinations de novo. United, States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481 (4th Cir.2008). The facts are reviewed “in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below.” United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 628 (4th Cir.2007). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in denying White’s motion to suppress.

Accordingly, we affirm White’s conviction. 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.