Court Opinion

ID: 1001959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:03:35.471031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:21.063522
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 00-4061

MCKENLY RICHARD SUGGS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation.
(CR-99-331-HNM)

Submitted: June 20, 2000

Decided: July 6, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James J. Gitomer, CARDIN & GITOMER, P.A., Baltimore, Mary-
land, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,
Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Mary-
land, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

McKenly Richard Suggs appeals his conviction and sentence fol-
lowing his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine
base. We affirm.

The only issue before the court is the propriety of the district
court's denial of Suggs's motion to suppress cocaine base found in his
car.* Suggs's plea agreement reserved the right to appeal the adverse
ruling on his motion to suppress the drugs, recovered during a consen-
sual search following a traffic stop. We have reviewed the record and
the district court's order and conclude that the court did not err in
finding Suggs was not illegally detained and that his consent to the
search of the vehicle was voluntary. See United States v. Sullivan, 138
F.3d 126, 131 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d
647, 650-51 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Judge Frederic N. Smalkin presided over the motion to suppress. The
case was later reassigned to Senior Judge Herbert N. Maletz.

                    2