Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernon Leon CARTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-02
Citations: 64 F. App'x 397
Docket Number: No. 02-4986
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernon Leon CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 64
Pages: 397–398

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernon Leon CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4986.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 21, 2003.
Decided June 2, 2003.
William J. Holmes, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty,
United States Attorney, Tricia S. Boerger, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Vernon Leon Carter was found guilty of one count of possession of cocaine base and one count of possession of marijuana both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2000). On appeal, Carter claims the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress a statement made at the scene of the search. He further claims the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of cocaine base. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and the district court's legal determinations de novo. 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). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and defer to the district court's credibility determinations. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998); United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1169 (4th Cir.1995). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find the court did not clearly err denying the motion to suppress.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, "[t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it." Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942) (citation omitted). We find there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for possession of cocaine base.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.