Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Maurice TROTTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-24
Citations: 282 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 07-4786
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Maurice TROTTER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 282
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Maurice TROTTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-4786.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2008.
Decided: June 24, 2008.
Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Stanley D. Rags-dale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia., South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Maurice Trotter was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a weapon and was sentenced to fifty-one months of imprisonment. On appeal, he raises two issues: (1) whether the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found at the traffic stop, and (2) whether there was sufficient evidence that he possessed the pistol at issue. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, viewing the evidence as required, United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998), we do not find that the district court's factual findings, following a hearing on the motion, were clearly erroneous or that its legal findings were incorrect. 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). Second, we find that any rational trier of fact could have found the element of possession, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir.1996). Thus, we find that both claims fail.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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.