UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4910

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

MOISES GARZA RAMIREZ, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00042-LHT-1) 

Submitted: April 20, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Richard E. Cassady, WILLIAMS & CASSADY, PLLC, Sylva, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States 

Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Moises Garza Ramirez appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motions to suppress evidence seized from his 

home and his statements to law enforcement officers. Ramirez 

pled guilty to one count of possessing a firearm while being 

illegally in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(5) (2006), but reserved the right to appeal the denial 

of his suppression motions. We affirm. 

 Ramirez first argues that the district court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his 

home. This court reviews the legal conclusions underlying the 

denial of a motion to suppress de novo, while it reviews the 

factual findings for clear error. United States v. Moreland, 

437 F.3d 424, 429 (4th Cir. 2006). Also, the evidence is 

construed in the light most favorable to the Government, as the 

prevailing party below. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 

547 (4th Cir. 1998). 

 Consent given freely and voluntarily is a recognized 

exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. See

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). “In 

determining whether consent to search was freely and voluntarily 

given, the totality of the circumstances surrounding the consent 

must be examined.” United States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650 

(4th Cir. 1996). 

2 
3 

 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Ramirez freely and voluntarily consented to the search of his 

home and the district court properly denied his motion to 

suppress with respect to the evidence seized from his home. 

 Ramirez next claims that the district court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress with respect to his statements 

regarding ownership of the firearm and his immigration status. 

Statements obtained from a defendant during custodial 

interrogation are presumptively compelled in violation of the 

Fifth Amendment, unless the Government shows that law 

enforcement officers adequately informed the defendant of his 

rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and 

obtained a waiver of those rights. United States v. Cardwell, 

433 F.3d 378, 388-89 (4th Cir. 2005). We have reviewed the 

record and conclude that Ramirez was not in custody for purposes 

of Miranda at the time he made any of the challenged statements. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Ramirez’s 

motion to suppress his statements. We therefore affirm the 

judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument 

as the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in 

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED