UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4978

BARRON BERNARD RAMSEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge, sitting by designation.

(CR-00-99)

Submitted: June 20, 2002

Decided: July 2, 2002

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J.

Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Barron Bernard Ramsey appeals his conviction on one count of

bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (1994). We find that the district

court properly denied Ramsey’s motion to suppress Ramsey’s confession. Further, the evidence was sufficient to convict Ramsey. We

therefore affirm. 

I

On April 7, 2000, the First National Bank in Bessemer City, North

Carolina, a federally insured bank, was robbed. Crystal Brown, a

teller, testified that Ramsey approached her and handed her a note

stating, "This is a robbery. Don’t do nothing stupid. I have a gun.

Give me all your twenties." Brown complied. Brown stated that she

initially thought that Ramsey was joking; however, once she realized

that he was serious, she feared for her life. 

Angela Suzanne Mauney, a detective, testified that a still photograph of the robber was obtained from the bank’s surveillance video.

Mauney contacted someone who was able to identify the robber as

Ramsey. She then collected six photographs, including one of the robber, and showed them to Brown, who immediately identified Ramsey’s photograph as that of the robber. Ramsey was arrested. He

subsequently confessed to the crime. Mauney read Ramsey’s confession at trial. 

Ramsey was convicted and sentenced to 235 months in prison. He

timely appeals. 

II

Ramsey first challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to

suppress his confession, which he claims was unlawfully induced by

the promise that if he cooperated, he would be released on bond. In

reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we "review the district

court’s factual findings for clear error, and its legal conclusions de

2 UNITED STATES v. RAMSEY
novo." United States v. Photogrammetric Data Servs., Inc., 259 F.3d

229, 237 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 70 U.S.L.W. 3373 (U.S. Mar.

18, 2002) (No. 01-722). The district court’s findings that Ramsey has

an eleventh-grade education, that officers transporting him to the

police substation following his arrest stopped to buy cigarettes for

Ramsey and allowed him to smoke them, that he was not beaten, and

that officers did not draw their guns once the arrest was effected are

supported by testimony at the suppression hearing and are not clearly

erroneous. 

Further, the court’s conclusion that the confession was voluntary is

fully supported by the record. Based on the totality of the circumstances, there is no evidence suggesting that Ramsey’s will was overborne or his capacity for self-determination critically impaired so that

his confession was involuntary. See United States v. Braxton, 112

F.3d 777, 783 (4th Cir. 1997). The existence of a threat or promise

that induced the confession does not necessarily invalidate a confession. Id.; see United States v. Ceballos, 812 F.2d 42, 50-51 (2nd Cir.

1987). The district court did not err in denying the suppression

motion. 

III

Ramsey also claims that the evidence was insufficient to convict

him. Applying the standard of Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,

80 (1942), we reject this argument. Ramsey robbed a federally

insured bank. Further, an ordinary person in Brown’s position would

have inferred a threat of bodily harm from Ramsey’s act of handing

her a note that told her that he had a gun, demanded money, and

instructed her not to do anything "stupid." See United States v. Woodrup, 86 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lajoie, 942

F.2d 699, 700-01 (10th Cir. 1991). 

IV

We therefore affirm the conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. RAMSEY 3