Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo PRESTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-03
Citations: 99 F. App'x 736
Docket Number: No. 02-2364
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo PRESTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 99
Pages: 736–737

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo PRESTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-2364.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 3, 2004.
Michael C. Leibson, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ray E. Richards, III, Southfield, MI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GIBBONS, COOK, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, District Judge.
The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Leo Preston appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. He argues law enforcement officers' failure to serve him with the search warrant before commencing a search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Criminal Rule 41(d). We affirm.
We review de novo the district court's denial of a motion to suppress. Our study of the appellate record, the applicable law, and the parties briefs, convince us that the officers did not violate Preston's Fourth Amendment rights. "[N]either the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the executing officer to serve the warrant on the owner before commencing the search." Groh v. Ramirez, — U.S. -, -n. 5, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 1292 n. 5, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004). We thus affirm the district court's denial of Preston's motion to suppress.