Case ID: f-appx_62/html/0548-01.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. Cornell A. PARRISH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4951.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 18, 2003.
    Decided May 15, 2003.
    Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Laura C. Marshall, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    
      Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Cornell A. Parrish, Jr., appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Parrish contends that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence and the statements obtained as a result of a search warrant because the search warrant affidavit was not supported by probable cause, and the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), did not apply. We review a district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s 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, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the search warrant application established probable cause to search Parrish’s residence. We therefore decline to review Parrish’s claim regarding the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

Accordingly, we affirm Parrish’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.