Court Opinion

ID: 9368354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 21:00:58.007235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.206874
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4216      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4216

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MOHAMED MAGI ABUSNENA,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Meyers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-cr-00301-M-1)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                       Decided: February 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Eugene E. Lester III, LESTER LAW, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4216      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               A jury convicted Mohamed Magi Abusnena of possession of a firearm by a felon,

        in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g)(1), 942(a)(2). The district court sentenced Abusnena to

        two years’ imprisonment followed by three years’ supervised release.             On appeal,

        Abusnena challenges the district court’s denial of his suppression motion and his motion

        to dismiss the charge against him. We affirm.

               The Fourth Amendment provides for “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their

        persons . . . and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend.

        IV. A search or seizure that is conducted without first obtaining a warrant is “per se

        unreasonable . . . subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated

        exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). Among the exceptions to

        the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.

        332, 338 (2009).

               Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may lawfully arrest a defendant

        absent a warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe that a defendant committed

        an offense. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370 (2003). Probable cause exists where

        the “facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge . . . are sufficient to warrant a

        prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that

        the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.” Michigan v.

        DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37 (1979). Whether the officer has probable cause is a fact-based

        inquiry that considers the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Humphries, 372

        F.3d 653, 657 (4th Cir. 2004).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4216       Doc: 44         Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

                Abusnena argues that the district court erred in finding that the search incident to

        arrest exception applied here. He argues his arrest was unlawful because Keeny lacked

        either reasonable suspicion to stop him or probable cause to arrest him. We disagree. The

        district court correctly found that the arresting officer had probable cause—and thus also

        reasonable suspicion—to believe that Abusnena discharged a firearm in violation of a local

        ordinance. Further, we conclude that the district court correctly found it was reasonable

        for the officers to believe that evidence relevant to discharging a firearm might be found

        within Abusnena’s car. See United States v. Davis, 997 F.3d 191, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2021).

        In sum, the district court correctly held that the search incident to arrest exception applied

        here.

                Next, Abusnena argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss

        his charge because, after he was indicted for felon in possession of a firearm, his predicate

        felony conviction was expunged. But as this court has held, a conviction for felon in

        possession of a firearm is valid even if the predicate conviction has been expunged, so long

        as the predicate conviction was in effect when the defendant possessed the firearm or

        ammunition. United States v. Kahoe, 134 F.3d 1230, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1998). Abusnena

        invites us to overrule Kahoe, but “one panel [of this Court] cannot overrule a decision

        issued by another panel.” United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 261 (4th Cir. 2015)

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4216      Doc: 44        Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

              Accordingly, we affirm. 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

                                                    4