Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul JOHNSON, a/k/a Michael Johnson, a/k/a Shariff Omar Carmichael, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-13
Citations: 269 F. App'x 331
Docket Number: No. 07-4444
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul JOHNSON, a/k/a Michael Johnson, a/k/a Shariff Omar Carmichael, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 331–331

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul JOHNSON, a/k/a Michael Johnson, a/k/a Shariff Omar Carmichael, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-4444.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2007.
Decided: March 13, 2008.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Paul Johnson was convicted of bank robbery, robbery of a credit union with a dangerous weapon, use and carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person previously convicted of a felony. On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during the stop of him and the search of his person and vehicle. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
This court reviews the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court's legal determinations de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). When a suppression motion has been denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998).
With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm Johnson's convictions. 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.