Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Jonathan HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-20
Citations: 331 F. App'x 242
Docket Number: No. 08-4896
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Jonathan HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 242–242

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Jonathan HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-4896.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 12, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 20, 2009.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, R. Andrew Bass-ford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Jonathan Harris pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (2006). Harris entered a conditional guilty plea and reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
This court reviews the district court's factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court's legal determinations de novo. United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir.2005). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. Id. This court gives due regard to the district court's opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses and does not review credibility determinations. See United States v. Lowe, 65 F.3d 1137, 1142 (4th Cir.1995). Our review of the record convinces us that the district court did not err in denying Harris' motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm Harris' 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 aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.