UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4398

BRYANT KEITH CHISHOLM,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-95-238)

Submitted: March 27, 1997

Decided: April 8, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William E. Martin, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Timika

Shafeek, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Chisholm appeals his convictions on two counts of making

a false statement in connection with the purchase of a firearm (18

U.S.C. § 922(a) (1994)) and two counts of unlawful possession of a

firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1994)). Chisholm claims that the evidence used to support his conviction was obtained in violation of his

Fourth Amendment rights and, therefore, was "fruit of the poisonous

tree." We affirm.

Chisholm was stopped by Asheboro police on January 19, 1995,

for allegedly running a stop sign. The officer noticed a firearm under

Chisholm's seat and placed him under arrest. Knowing that Chisholm

was a convicted felon, the local authorities reported the gun (a 9 mm

pistol) to Agent Ernest Driver of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Firearms. In the course of his investigation, Driver learned that Chisholm had purchased two firearms (a .30 caliber M1 carbine rifle and

a MAK 90 rifle) in the fall of 1993 and that Chisholm had falsely

stated on the ATF Form No. 4473 that he had not been convicted of

a felony.

Chisholm was indicted in September 1995 on two counts of making a false statement in the acquisition of a firearm (the two rifles)

and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (the 9 mm

pistol). Chisholm filed a motion to suppress arguing that the police

officer did not have probable cause to conduct the vehicle stop. The

district court agreed, and suppressed the pistol found in Chisholm's

car.

The government then filed a superseding indictment charging Chisholm again with the two counts of making a false statement in connection with the purchase of the two rifles, and two counts of being

a felon in possession of those rifles. Chisholm's renewed motion to

 2
suppress was denied by the district court which found that the evidence related to Driver's investigation was sufficiently free of any

taint from the traffic stop. Chisholm was convicted on all four counts

and noted this timely appeal.

We review de novo the district court's legal conclusions in ruling

on Chisholm's motion to suppress; the factual findings underlying

those conclusions are reviewed for clear error. United States v.

Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). The question, in determining whether evidence is tainted by an illegal search, is whether the

evidence was obtained through exploitation of the prior illegal conduct, or whether there was sufficient attenuation between the illegality

and the consent as to dissipate the taint. Wong Sun v. United States,

371 U.S. 471, 491 (1963). Chisholm contends that, if not for the illegal stop, Driver would never have begun his investigation. However,

Driver's investigation took place independently of the illegal stop and

the Asheboro police were uninvolved. Accordingly, we find the evidence sufficiently attenuated from the traffic stop and affirm the district court's order denying Chisholm's motion to suppress. See United

States v. Ceccolino, 435 U.S. 268, 276 (1978) ("Even in situations

where the exclusionary rule is plainly applicable, we have declined to

adopt a `per se' or `but for' rule that would make inadmissible any

evidence . . . which somehow came to light through a chain of causation that began with an illegal arrest.")

Chisholm has also filed a pro se motion for bail or, alternatively,

to remand this case to the district court so that he may present his

claim that his convictions should be overturned because his conduct

was not illegal under the North Carolina Felony Firearm Act. We find

Chisholm's claims without merit and accordingly deny the motion.

Chisholm's convictions are affirmed. 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

 3