Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John W. STINSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-24
Citations: 298 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 08-4361
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John W. STINSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John W. STINSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-4361.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 10, 2008.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2008.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Lisa G. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John W. Stinson, Jr., pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). In his plea agreement, Stinson reserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We have carefully considered the arguments of counsel and the evidence presented to the district court, and we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Stinson lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence of his girlfi*iend and that Stinson was not in custody at the time he made his admissions of ownership of the gun, and therefore the statements were not taken in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992) (providing standard of review); see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We affirm the denial of the motion to suppress, and therefore affirm Stinson's conviction for the reasons stated by the district court. 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.