UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 98-4495

NORMAN RAY WILLIS, a/k/a Pizza

Man,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-98-15-A)

Submitted: April 13, 1999

Decided: April 26, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joseph J. McCarthy, DELANEY, MCCARTHY, COLTON &

BOTZIN, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,

United States Attorney, Michael E. Rich, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

After the district court denied his motion to suppress statements

and evidence, Norman Ray Willis entered a conditional plea of guilty

to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West Supp. 1999), and use

of a firearm in connection with the robbery, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)

(West Supp. 1999). Willis reserved his right to appeal the denial of

his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, he contends that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, that his statements were elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and that

his statements were not voluntary because he was kept in isolation for

hours after his arrest and he was under the influence of crack cocaine.

He further asserts that his subsequent statements, given after being

informed of his rights and signing a waiver of those rights were also

inadmissible because they were tainted by the earlier inadmissible

statements. Finding no error by the district court, we affirm.

Willis first contends that the arresting officers lacked probable

cause to arrest him. He was initially arrested for operating a motor

vehicle with stolen tags. Willis was the driver and sole occupant of

the gray Dodge Aries-K that the officers had determined had stolen

license tags. At the time he was stopped, Willis was in the process of

driving the vehicle from the motel parking lot. This constitutes operation of a vehicle with stolen tags. Because the officers saw Willis

operate the vehicle, the district court properly determined that they

had probable cause to arrest him for this offense. See Md. Ann. Code

art. 27, § 594B (Supp. 1998); United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411,

418 (1976).

Next, Willis contends that, in light of the length of time he was

kept in the interrogation room and the fact that he had smoked crack

cocaine earlier in the day, his statements to Detectives Jernigan and

Isaac were not voluntary. The district court made factual findings that

 2
Willis' statements to Detectives Jernigan and Isaacs were voluntary.

Specifically, the district court found that Detective Jernigan's statements to Willis that he was a suspect in a number of robberies in

Prince George's County were not a means of interrogation, and, in

any event, these statements did not result in any comment or admission by Willis. Also, the district court found that even if Willis had

smoked crack prior to his arrest, his ability to understand, perceive,

and make judgments in his interest was not adversely affected. We

find that these factual findings were not clearly erroneous. See United

States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). Given the district

court's factual findings, we conclude that Willis' will was not overborne, nor was his capacity for self-determination impaired. See

United States v. Guay, 108 F.3d 545, 549 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, his

statements to the officers were voluntary and admissible.

Willis also contends that he did not voluntarily waive his rights

prior to Jernigan's interrogation of him, and therefore, his statement

to Jernigan and all of his subsequent statements were tainted and

should have been suppressed. The district court found credible Jernigan's testimony that he informed Willis of his rights and that Willis

acknowledged his understanding of these rights, but refused to sign

the waiver of rights form. This court gives due deference to the district judge's opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses and will

only reverse the court's factual findings if they are clearly erroneous.

See United States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 870 (4th Cir. 1992).

Applying this standard, we find no clear error, and conclude that Willis' statements to Detectives Jernigan and Isaacs were knowing, voluntary, and admissible. Willis' subsequent statements to Detective

Davis and Special Agents Luciano and Timko, preceded by Willis'

waiver of his rights after being properly advised, were also voluntary

and thus admissible.

Willis argues that his testimony that he requested an attorney during his initial meeting with Jernigan was uncontradicted. He also testified that he informed Isaacs, Luciano, and Timko that he had

requested that Jernigan contact his attorney. These officers all testified that Willis did not so inform them. Also, the district court found

Willis' testimony on this fact incredible. This credibility determination by the district court will be upheld by this court unless it is

clearly erroneous. See Williams, 977 F.2d at 870. In light of the other

 3
officers' testimony that Willis did not inform them that he had

requested an attorney, despite his testimony that he did so inform

them, we find no clear error in the district court's decision to discredit

Willis' testimony.

In conclusion, we affirm the district court's order denying Willis'

motion to suppress evidence. 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

 4