UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-4248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DAVID CANO, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:06-cr-00013) 

Submitted: January 23, 2009 Decided: February 18, 2009 

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Randolph M. Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH M. LEE, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 David Cano was convicted of possession of a firearm by 

a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). 

He was sentenced to sixty-three months’ imprisonment. Cano now 

appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that the district 

court erred in denying Cano’s motion to suppress, but 

acknowledging that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Cano has been apprised of his right to file a pro se brief, but 

has not done so. We affirm. 

 In the Anders brief, counsel argues that the district 

court improperly denied Cano’s motion to suppress in violation 

of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Specifically, he 

claims violation of Cano’s Fourth Amendment rights when police 

entered his residence without a warrant and discovered a shotgun 

and firearm shells. He also claims violation of his Fifth 

Amendment rights relative to incriminating statements he made to 

the police relative to the shotgun, on the ground that he 

received inadequate warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 

436 (1966). When considering a district court’s ruling on a 

motion to suppress, we review the court’s factual findings for 

clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. 

Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481 (4th Cir. 2008). 

2 
 Here, the district court found that Cano repeatedly 

and voluntarily consented to the search of his residence, during 

which the shotgun and shells were discovered by officers in 

plain view. The court’s findings on this issue are fully 

supported by the testimony of the various officers at the scene, 

and there is no evidence to the contrary. In addition, although 

Cano was on house arrest and under electronic monitoring on an 

unrelated offense when he made the incriminating statements 

between the time the shotgun was found and the time he was 

advised of his Miranda rights, the district court determined 

that he was not “in custody” for Miranda purposes. We find no 

infirmity in the district court’s legal conclusion. Such 

circumstantial restraints upon a person’s liberty are not 

tantamount to police-imposed restraints. See United States v. 

Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 633 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United 

States v. Conley, 779 F.2d 970, 973 (4th Cir. 1985). 

 We have examined the entire record in this case in 

accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Cano’s 

conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel 

inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the 

client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in 

3 
4 

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the 

client. 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