Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-04664/USCOURTS-ca4-09-04664-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Leon Gray
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-4664 Doc: 44 Filed: 08/20/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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). 

Appeal: 09-4664 Doc: 44 Filed: 08/20/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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. 

Appeal: 09-4664 Doc: 44 Filed: 08/20/2010 Pg: 3 of 3