Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tierrence Marcelle SMALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-16
Citations: 488 F. App'x 741
Docket Number: No. 12-4038
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tierrence Marcelle SMALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 488
Pages: 741–742

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tierrence Marcelle SMALL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-4038.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 7, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 16, 2012.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tierrence Mareelle Small pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2006). In the plea agreement, Small reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop. On appeal, Small argues that he was unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that any evidence resulting from such seizure should have been suppressed. We affirm.
We review factual findings underlying the district court's denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir.2011). When a suppression motion has been denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 217 (4th Cir.2008). This court grants great deference to factual findings based on credibility determinations. See United States v. Moses, 540 F.3d 263, 268-69 (4th Cir.2008). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in resolving the conflicting testimony and denying the suppression motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.