UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WADE GAYLE,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:09-cr-00408-WDQ-1)

Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Catherine Flynn, MEAD, FLYNN & GRAY, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellant. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States 

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wade Gayle was convicted by a jury of possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1) (2006). He was sentenced at the bottom of his 

Guidelines range to 210 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, 

Gayle’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 (1967), stating that in her opinion 

there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning 

whether the district court erred in denying Gayle’s motion to 

suppress. Although advised of his right to do so, Gayle has not 

filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government declined to 

file a response. We affirm.

We review the district court’s factual findings 

underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and the court’s 

legal determinations de novo. United States v. Day, 591 F.3d 

679, 682 (4th Cir. 2010). When a district court denies a 

suppression motion, we review the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Government. United States v. Matthews, 591 

F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 412 

(2010). We give due regard to the district court’s opportunity 

to judge the credibility of witnesses “for it is the role of the 

district court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility 

during a pre-trial motion to suppress.” United States v. Abu 

Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks 
3

and citation omitted). Our review of the record leads us to 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying Gayle’s 

motion to suppress on the grounds that the vehicle stop in 

question was valid, Gayle’s warrantless arrest was supported by 

probable cause, and Gayle’s ensuing statement to authorities was 

not in response to interrogation and, therefore, admissible.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Gayle’s conviction and sentence. This court 

requires that counsel inform Gayle, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Gayle requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

believes that 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 Gayle. 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