Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-04182/USCOURTS-ca4-10-04182-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Collins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO COLLINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:08-cr-00283-1)

Submitted: July 30, 2010 Decided: August 10, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, 

Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States 

Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4182 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/10/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Collins pleaded guilty to being a felon in 

possession of a firearm, in violation of 28 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) 

and § 924(a)(2). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Collins 

preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to 

suppress evidence of the firearm seized from his person during a 

pat-down of his clothing, conducted in conjunction with the 

search of a vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger. We 

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the 

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Collins, 

650 F.Supp.2d 527 (S.D.W.Va. 2009). 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

Appeal: 10-4182 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/10/2010 Pg: 2 of 2