Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04609/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04609-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy J. Lynch
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4590

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY J. LYNCH,

Defendant- Appellant.

No. 07-4609

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY J. LYNCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:06-cr-00454-REP; 3:03-cr-00115-REP)

Submitted: February 27, 2008 Decided: March 5, 2008

Appeal: 07-4609 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/05/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Stephen W.

Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4609 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/05/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Timothy J. Lynch pled guilty to possession with intent to

distribute heroin within 1000 feet of a public school. In his plea

agreement, he reserved the right to challenge the denial of his

motion to suppress. In appeal No. 07-4590, Lynch challenges his

conviction, asserting that the district court clearly erred in

determining that the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe

that he was involved in criminal activity and that he might be

armed. In appeal No. 07-4609, Lynch appeals from the twenty-fourmonth prison term the district court imposed after revoking the

supervised release term he was serving at the time of his unlawful

possession of heroin. He requests that this court remand the

supervised release case for resentencing if we find that the

district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

We have carefully considered the arguments of counsel and

the evidence presented to the district court, and we conclude that

the district court did not clearly err. United States v. Rusher,

966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992) (providing standard of review).

Thus, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress for the

reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, Lynch’s

conviction and the order on revocation of supervised release are

also affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

Appeal: 07-4609 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/05/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-4609 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/05/2008 Pg: 4 of 4