Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Urain Alexander ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-14
Citations: 205 F. App'x 978
Docket Number: No. 05-4949
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Urain Alexander ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 978–979

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Urain Alexander ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-4949.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 14, 2006.
Billy Lee Ponds, The Ponds Law Firm, Harry Tun, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Olivia N. Hawkins, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Urain Alexander Robinson was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2000), and sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Robinson asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
This court reviews the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court's legal determinations de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). When a suppression motion has been denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998).
With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 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.