Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael BROWN, a/k/a Michael Haseem Brown, a/k/a Rasheem Jamal Russell, a/k/a Hakeem Brown, a/k/a Rasheem Russell, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-08
Citations: 28 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 01-4611
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael BROWN, a/k/a Michael Haseem Brown, a/k/a Rasheem Jamal Russell, a/k/a Hakeem Brown, a/k/a Rasheem Russell, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 28
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael BROWN, a/k/a Michael Haseem Brown, a/k/a Rasheem Jamal Russell, a/k/a Hakeem Brown, a/k/a Rasheem Russell, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4611.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 18, 2002.
Decided Feb. 8, 2002.
Peter L. Goldman, O’Reilly & Mark, L.L.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Kathleen M. Kahoe, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Michael Brown appeals his conviction following his conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000). On appeal, Brown asserts the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress a firearm found in his shoe following his arrest. We affirm.
Brown was arrested for public intoxication, and the firearm in question was discovered during a subsequent custodial search of Brown's person. Accordingly, unless the arrest was illegal, that search does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (holding police officers may conduct warrantless search of suspect's person after arrest to remove weapons that could be used to resist arrest or escape). Reviewing evidence presented at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to the government, see United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998) (providing standard of review), we find there was an adequate basis for Brown's arrest for public intoxication, and that that basis existed prior to the frisk conducted by the arresting officer. See Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 37, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) (noting the legality of arrest for state offense that does not otherwise implicate the Constitution is to be judged by state law); Fierst v. Virginia, 210 Va. 757, 173 S.E.2d 807, 810 n. 2 (Va.1970) (providing statutory definition of intoxicated). Accordingly, we find no error in the district court's denial of Brown's motion to suppress.
In light of the foregoing, we affirm Brown's conviction and sentence. 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.