Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/321574189/United-States-v-Civers-4th-Cir-2002
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 18:21:18
Document Index: 645817624

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841']

United States v. Civers, 4th Cir. (2002) | United States Federal Probation And Supervised Release | Appeal
Filed: 2002-01-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-4043
сохранитьСохранить «United States v. Civers, 4th Cir. (2002)» для последующего чтения
United States v. Sadler, 4th Cir. (2002)
United States v. Marlon Pegram, 4th Cir. (2014)
United States v. Brandon Solomon, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Adams, 4th Cir. (2004)
FREDERICK LAMAR CIVERS,
No. 01-4043
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
(CR-99-66-V)
E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, POYNER & SPRUILL, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Brian L. Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Char- lotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNITED STATES v. CIVERS
Frederick Lamar Civers appeals his conviction and 135-month sen- tence after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). Prior to entering into a written plea agreement, Civers filed a motion to suppress 28.2
grams of crack cocaine seized from his person and 177 grams of crack cocaine seized from the vehicle during a traffic stop, which the dis- trict court denied. Civers argues: (1) the district court committed error by denying his motion to suppress the evidence;* (2) that 21 U.S.C.
§ 841 is unconstitutional in the wake of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466 (2000); and (3) the district court erred in sentencing him to
a five-year term of supervised release. We affirm.
We review a district court’s factual findings underlying its denial of a motion to suppress for clear error, while reviewing its legal con- clusions de novo. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). In addition, in reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). Under these standards, we conclude the district court properly denied Civers’ motion to suppress evidence discovered in the course of a traffic stop and consensual search of his vehicle.
Next, Civers asserts § 841 is unconstitutional in the wake of Apprendi. This court recently held Apprendi does not render § 841 facially unconstitutional. United States v. McAllister, No. 00-4423, 2001 WL 1387341, at *3 (4th Cir. Nov. 8, 2001). Therefore, this issue lacks merit.
Finally, Civers asserts the district court erred in sentencing him to
a five-year term of supervised release. Civers argues he was sen- tenced as if he had been convicted of an aggravated drug-trafficking offense under § 841(b)(1)(A), which carries a minimum supervised
*The plea agreement contains a conditional waiver of appeal that spe- cifically permits Civers to seek appellate review of the district court’s adverse ruling upon his motion to suppress.
release term of five years. According to Civers, he should have been sentenced under § 841(b)(1)(C) and received a term of supervised release no longer than three years. We find this claim meritless. See United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 647 n.4 (4th Cir. 2001).
For these reasons, we affirm Civers’ conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu- ment would not significantly aid in the decisional process.
Документы, похожие на «United States v. Civers, 4th Cir. (2002)»
United States v. Burgess, 4th Cir. (2011)
United States v. Hernandez, 4th Cir. (2004)
United States v. Matthews, 4th Cir. (2011)
Ho v. Gonzales, 4th Cir. (2005)
Rafael Chavarry v. United States, 11th Cir. (2013)