UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-5003

CHRISTOPHER PAUL SAVAGE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4062

CHRISTOPHER PAUL SAVAGE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.

Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-64, CR-02-20)

Submitted: May 29, 2003

Decided: June 4, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Stephen G. Jory, JORY & SMITH, L.C., Elkins, West Virginia;

Wiley Newbold, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen
Donald Warner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Christopher Savage appeals his convictions for being a felon in

possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), (j), 924(a)(2), (e) (2000), interstate transportation of a

stolen firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(i),

924(a)(2), and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (2000), and the fine imposed by the district court

after his guilty plea to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a) (2000). Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Savage has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite being advised of his right to do so. Finding

no reversible error, we affirm. 

Savage first contends the district court erred in denying his motions

to suppress the shotgun found in his motel room during an attempt to

execute an arrest warrant and numerous statements made to officers

after his arrest. We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s legal

determinations de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699

(1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992).

When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence

in the light most favorable to the Government. See United States v.

Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed the

district court’s denial of Savage’s motions to suppress and find no

error. 

Savage next contends the district court erred in imposing a $5000

fine. Because Savage failed to object to the fine below, we review his

2 UNITED STATES v. SAVAGE
claim for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732

(1993). We find no plain error in the district court’s imposition of the

$5000 fine. See United States v. Francisco, 35 F.3d 116, 121-22 (4th

Cir. 1994); United States v. Taylor, 984 F.2d 618, 622 (4th Cir. 1993).

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record and find no error.

Accordingly, we affirm Savage’s convictions and sentences. 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 such

a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may 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

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. SAVAGE 3