NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FULL -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a0851n.06 No. 11-5706 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. PATRI CK MARI O J ACKSON, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TENNESSEE

Be fore : MARTI

N and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es; ECONOMUS, District J udg e. *

P E R CURI AM. Patrick Mario J ackson appea ls the di strict court’s denial of hi s motion t o suppress the ammunition seized during the war rantless sear ch of his bedroom. T he parties have waived oral argument, and this panel unanimously ag ree s that oral arg ument is not neede d. Fe d. R. App. P. 34(a). F or the re asons ar ticulated below, w e af

firm. During a sear ch of J ackson’ s bedroom, Chattanoog a (Tenne ssee) Police Offic er L ewis Davis seized a bag containing “seve ral miscellaneous sorts of ammunition, rang ing from 7.62 milli meter down to 22 milli meter, including shotgun casing s, mag azines used for pistols, hols te rs for containing a firear m.” A federa l grand jury char g ed Jackson with beinga fe lon in possession of ammuni tion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)( 1). J ackson moved to suppress the ammuniti on on the g rounds that it was obtained in violation of the Four th Amendment. A mag istrate judge conducte d a hear ing

on J ackson’ s motion and was prese nted with two versions of the events—one from Officer Davis and the other

from Jackson.

The Honora

ble Peter C. Economus, United States Senior District J udg e for the Norther n * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation.No. 11-5706 - 2 - The mag istrate judge subsequently cre dited Offic er Davis’s testimony and re comm ended denying J ackson’ s motion to suppress. Over J ackson’ s objections, the district court adopted t h e mag istrate judge ’s rec ommendation and denied th motion to suppress. There afte r, J ackson and the United States enter ed into a plea a g ree ment in which J ackson ple aded guilty but r eser ved his r ight to appea l the denial of his suppression motion. The district court sentenc ed J ackson to 180 months of imprisonment. We revie w the district court’s fac tual finding s for cl ea r err or and its leg al conclusions de

novo. United States v. Campbell , 549 F.3d 364, 370 (6th Cir. 2008). In an appea l from a denial of

a motion to suppress we will revie w the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the prosec ution. Id

. “[A] sear ch conducte d pursua n t to a valid consent is constitutionally permissible.” Schnec kloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218, 222 (1973). Fur ther, “the question whether a consent to

a sear ch was in fac t ‘voluntary ’ or was the product of duress or coer cio n , ex p ress or implied, is a question of fa ct to be dete rmined fr om the totality of all the c ircumstance s.” Id

. at 227. Thus, the district court’s finding reg arding J ackson’ s consent to se arc h his be droom can be disturbed only if it is clearly

err oneous. See U

nited States v. Erwin , 155 F.3d 818, 823 ( 6th Cir. 1998). The evidenc e s u

p p o r ts th e mag istrate judge ’s conclusion that J ackson consente d to the sear ch of his room. “Where there are two permissible views of the evidenc e, the fa ct fi n d er ’s choice betwee n them cannot be clea rly err oneous.” Anderson v. City ofBessem er City , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). Given that the mag istrate judge was p re s en t ed with two versions of the same events, her adoption of Offic er Davis’s testimony does not constitute reve rsible err or. See id. ; Erwin , 155 F.3d at 823. The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.