Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Measha Lamont FEARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-10-18
Citations: 48 F. App'x 96
Docket Number: No. 02-4340
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Measha Lamont FEARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 48
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Measha Lamont FEARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4340.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 10, 2002.
Decided Oct. 18, 2002.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Measha Lamont Fearrington appeals the district court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence from a search pursuant to his intensive probation, and his subsequent conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). We review the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, while reviewing the legal determinations de novo. See United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992). 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). It is the role of the fact finder to observe the witnesses and weigh their credibility during pre-trial motions to suppress, and we accord great deference to these findings. See United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1169 (4th Cir.1995).
We have reviewed the record and the district court's denial of the motion to suppress and find no reversible error. Ac cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court as stated from the bench during the hearing of November 6, 2001. 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.