Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-10
Citations: 390 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 10-4182
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-4182.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 10, 2010.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Collins pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Collins preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the firearm seized from his person during a pat-down of his clothing, conducted in conjunction with the search of a vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Collins, 650 F.Supp.2d 527 (S.D.W.Va.2009). 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.