UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4942

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ODELL GENE GOLDEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00026-CCE-1)

Submitted: May 31, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013

Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, T. Nick 

Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Odell Gene Golden pled guilty to being a felon in 

possession of a weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

(2006). His guilty plea was conditioned on his ability to 

appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. 

On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in denying 

his motion to suppress, because the weapon was found during a 

search without a warrant. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm.

Searches undertaken without a warrant and issued upon 

probable cause are per se unreasonable under the Fourth 

Amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and 

well-delineated exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 

347, 357 (1967). Two exceptions to the warrant requirement are 

exigent circumstances, United States v. Turner, 650 F.2d 526, 

528 (4th Cir. 1981), and consent to a search. Schneckloth v. 

Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973).

Golden contends that exigent circumstances no longer 

existed at the time the gun was discovered, such that the 

district court should have granted his motion to suppress the 

revolver found in Arnold Johnson’s apartment. When considering 

the denial of a motion to suppress, we review de novo a district 

court’s legal conclusions, while we review its factual findings 

for clear error. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 
3

(1996); United States v. Guijon-Ortiz, 660 F.3d 757, 762 (4th 

Cir. 2011). The district court noted that although exigent 

circumstances allowed officers to enter Johnson’s apartment, the 

gun was found following Johnson’s consent for officers to search 

for the gun that Golden had fired in his apartment.

We find no clear error in the district court’s factual

finding regarding Johnson’s consent. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699. 

As expressly noted by the district court, it made a credibility 

determination based on the somewhat differing testimony 

regarding the details of Johnson’s consent for officers to 

search. We note, however, that there was no evidence indicating 

Johnson did not consent for officers to find the pistol that 

Golden had fired in his apartment. Moreover, we are mindful 

that we must construe evidence in the light most favorable to 

the Government, the prevailing party below. United States v. 

Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 320 (4th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral 

argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED