UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4044

SCOTT TREMAYNE GRIFFIN, a/k/a

Nugget,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CR-99-68)

Submitted: September 29, 2000

Decided: October 23, 2000

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Anthony S. Mulford, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, Ronald G. Reel, Special Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Scott Tremayne Griffin appeals his conviction for possession with

intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841(a)(1) (West 1999) (two counts), for which he was sentenced to

240 months imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised

release. We affirm. 

Griffin first challenges the district court’s order denying in part his

motion to suppress statements and evidence seized from his person,

car, and motel room. We review the district court’s findings on a

denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions

de novo. See United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.

1992). Further, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable

to the party who prevailed below. See United States v. Seidman, 156

F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). 

We find that, under the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit

upon which the search warrant was based established a fair probability that illegal narcotics would be found at the motel room where

Griffin was staying. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 (1983)

(stating standard of review). Therefore, the search warrant was valid

and all evidence seized pursuant to the warrant was admissible. We

also find that officers had probable cause to arrest Griffin based on

their own observations, which corroborated the informant’s tip. See

Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964). The statements that Griffin

sought unsuccessfully to suppress were never used by the government

in his trial. Accordingly, he cannot show any prejudice as a result of

the district court’s ruling on this issue. 

Finally, Griffin claims that the district court erred in denying his

Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for new trial. Because Griffin failed to

establish that the evidence would "probably result in acquittal at a

2 UNITED STATES v. GRIFFIN
new trial," the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion. See United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we: (1) grant Griffin’s motion to file a supplemental

pro se brief, (2) deny his motion to supplement/correct the record; and

(3) affirm the district court’s order denying Griffin’s motion to suppress and affirm his convictions and sentence.* Griffin’s attorney has

filed a motion to withdraw. We deny the motion. This court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may again move in this court

for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*We have considered the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

___, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), and find that, because the defendant

received a sentence of imprisonment and term of supervised release that

did not exceed the statutory maximums set out in 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999), no plain error occurred. See United States

v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 933-34 (8th Cir. 2000); see also

McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986). 

UNITED STATES v. GRIFFIN 3