Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06117/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06117-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jarian Ricks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6117

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JARIAN RICKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:09-cr-00428-WDQ-1; 1:12-cv-01368-WDQ)

Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: January 16, 2015

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jarian Ricks, Appellant Pro Se. Sujit Raman, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6117 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jarian Ricks appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion in which he 

asserted that he was entitled to relief under the Supreme 

Court’s ruling in United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) 

(holding that attachment of a Global Positioning System tracking 

device to a vehicle and use of the device to track the vehicle’s 

movements constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth 

Amendment), and that counsel was ineffective for failing to 

pursue a challenge to the GPS evidence. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. See United States v. 

Stephens, 764 F.3d 327, 338 (4th Cir. 2014) (applying the good 

faith exception to the exclusionary rule where warrantless GPS 

evidence was obtained prior to the decision in Jones).

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-6117 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 2 of 2