Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Lamar WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-09
Citations: 571 F. App'x 192
Docket Number: No. 13-4598
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Lamar WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 571
Pages: 192–193

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Lamar WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-4598.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2014.
Decided: May 9, 2014.
Jonathan M. Milling, Milling Law Firm, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Lamar Watkins appeals from his convictions after a jury trial for drug and firearm offenses. On appeal, Watkins only argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
In considering the denial of a suppression motion, we review the district court's legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Kelly, 592 F.3d 586, 589 (4th Cir.2010). The court "view[s] the facts in the light most favorable to the Government, as the party prevailing below." United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th Cir.2013). The court also "defer[s] to the district court's credibility findings, as it is the role of the [trial] court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pretrial motion to suppress." United States v. Griffin, 589 F.3d 148, 150-51 n. 1 (4th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the transcript of the motion to suppress hearing and the district court's detailed ruling on the motion from the bench and find no clear error in the district court's finding of facts or error in its legal conclusions. We defer to its credibility findings. Because the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, we affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.