UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4339

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MATTHEWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (5:09-cr-00023-gec-1)

Submitted: January 10, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David A. Downes, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. DOWNES, Front Royal, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States 

Attorney, Jeb T. Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Matthews appeals from his conviction for 

conspiracy to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin, 

possession with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of 

heroin, and possession with intent to distribute hydromorphone, 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). Matthews 

filed a motion to suppress evidence found as a result of a 

search of the vehicle that he owned and in which he was a 

passenger at the time of the stop, and the district court denied 

the motion. On appeal, Matthews argues that the district court 

erred in finding that the Virginia code section that the vehicle 

was stopped for violating did not apply because his vehicle was 

licensed in South Carolina. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review the district court’s factual findings 

underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and the court’s 

legal determinations de novo. United States v. Day, 591 F.3d 

679, 682 (4th Cir. 2010). When a district court denies a 

suppression motion, this court reviews the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the Government. United States v. Matthews, 

591 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 412 

(2010). This court gives due regard to the district court’s 

opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses “for it is the 

role of the district court to observe witnesses and weigh their 

credibility during a pre-trial motion to suppress.” United 
3

States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 

1312 (2009).

We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the 

hearing on Matthews’ motion and we conclude that, taken in the 

light most favorable to the Government, see Matthews, 591 F.3d 

at 234, the evidence adduced at the hearing amply supports the 

district court’s ruling. The court did not err in holding that 

Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-716(B) (2010) applies to out-of-state 

license plates, and even if it does not, the statute is unclear 

and would still provide an objectively reasonable basis for the 

officer to stop the vehicle.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Matthews’ motion 

to suppress and 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 aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED