Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Dwight BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-13
Citations: 50 F. App'x 148
Docket Number: No. 02-4321
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Dwight BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 148–149

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Dwight BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4321.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.
Decided Nov. 13, 2002.
Kenneth W. Ravenell, Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow, Gilden & Ravenell, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Michael Dwight Brown appeals his conviction and 360 month sentence for distributing 500 or more grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000).
First, Brown argues that the district court erred in dismissing his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence. We review a district court's legal conclusions on a suppression motion de novo and the court's underlying factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998). Brown's claim is meritless. The search warrant application established probable cause to search Brown's residence. See United States v. Williams, 974 F.2d 480, 481-82 (4th Cir.1992); United States v. Corral, 970 F.2d 719, 728 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Anderson, 851 F.2d 727, 729 (4th Cir.1988).
Second, Brown argues that the jury instructions issued by the district court were prejudicial. We review Brown's challenge to the jury instructions for abuse of discretion. United States v. Whittington, 26 F.3d 456, 462 (4th Cir.1994). This claim is meritless as well. The jury instructions were an accurate reflection of the applicable law and did not prejudice Brown's defense. See United States v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 29, 32 (4th Cir.1995); United States v. Cobb, 905 F.2d 784, 788-89 (4th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, we affirm Brown's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.