UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN JEFFREY JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

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

District Judge. (3:09-cr-00022-FDW-1)

Submitted: January 20, 2012 Decided: January 26, 2012

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela G. Parrott, Acting Executive Director, Ross H. 

Richardson, Assistant Federal Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Jeffrey Jones appeals his conviction after 

entering a conditional plea of guilty to one count of being a 

felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g) (2006). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming that the 

district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence 

seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. Jones 

was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief 

but has not done so. We affirm.

Jones contends that there was no basis for a

protective sweep of his residence after he was detained by 

police, and so the warrant obtained later to search the 

residence was illegal because it was based on items seen by the

officer during the illegal sweep. We review the factual 

findings underlying a district court’s ruling on a motion to 

suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. 

United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). 

When evaluating the denial of a suppression motion, this court 

construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Government. Id. 

The district court declined to rule on the legality of 

the protective sweep because evidence established that the 

officer at the scene had probable cause to apply for the search 
3

warrant independent of the information revealed by the 

protective sweep. See United States v. Gillenwaters, 890 F.2d 

679, 681-82 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the officer who conducted 

the sweep testified that he decided to obtain a warrant at the 

time he detained Jones and before the sweep was conducted. See

Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988). We 

accordingly find no error in the district court’s denial of the 

motion to suppress.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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, then counsel may move in this court for leave to 

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, 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