Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee A. NEWMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-27
Citations: 112 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 04-4212
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee A. NEWMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 281–282

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee A. NEWMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-4212.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2004.
Decided: Oct. 27, 2004.
Richard L. Derrico, Copenhaver, Ellett, Cornelison & Derrico, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lee A. Newman appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin for which he received a 151-month sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Newman's sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Legal conclusions underlying the denial of a motion to suppress are reviewed de novo and factual findings are reviewed for clear error. 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).
We have fully reviewed the materials submitted by the parties, including the transcript of the suppression hearing and the district court's opinion, and find no error in the district court's order denying Newman's motion to suppress evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.
We grant Newman's motion to file a supplemental pro se brief and relevant materials. 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