Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Carmichael SMITH, Jr., a/k/a Tiger, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 193 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 06-4128
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Carmichael SMITH, Jr., a/k/a Tiger, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Carmichael SMITH, Jr., a/k/a Tiger, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-4128.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 1, 2006.
Paul G. Beers, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Edward A. Lustig, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Carmichael Smith, Jr., pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm reserving his right to contest the district court's decision to deny his motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his person. On appeal, he contests the denial of the suppression motion. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review a district court's factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, this court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998). Construing the facts as required, we find no reversible error. Accordingly we affirm Smith's conviction. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED