Court Opinion

ID: 1002366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:10:10.620172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:29.613550
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 00-4160

PETER VALENTINE HART,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CR-98-16)

Submitted: August 22, 2000

Decided: September 8, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jennifer T. Stanton, J.T. STANTON, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Janet S. Reincke,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Peter Valentine Hart pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a
felon. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West Supp. 2000). He appeals his
conviction and sentence, contending that the district court erred by
denying his motion to suppress and by refusing to reduce his base
offense level. We affirm.

After a state trooper stopped Hart for driving with a revoked
license, an agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
("ATF") questioned Hart and searched his car, where he found a rifle.
Hart contends that the stop was inadmissible under Virginia law and
the Fourth Amendment because the state trooper did not rely exclu-
sively on personal observations. The Fourth Amendment, however,
does not require officers to rely on personal knowledge when stop-
ping a suspected misdemeanant. See Street v. Surdyka, 492 F.2d 368,
372 (4th Cir. 1974). Even if Virginia law is more restrictive, as Hart
contends, it does not govern the admissibility of evidence in federal
court. See United States v. Clyburn, 24 F.3d 613, 616 (4th Cir. 1994).

Hart also alleges that the ATF agent unlawfully detained him and
searched his vehicle after the state trooper issued a summons. The
record establishes, however, that the encounter and the search were
consensual. See United States v. Elie, 111 F.3d 1135, 1144-45 (4th
Cir. 1997).

Finally, Hart faults the district court for refusing to adjust his sen-
tence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(6), which sets a base offense
level of six for certain firearms crimes if the defendant intended to use
the firearm for lawful purposes. While there is evidence in the record
that Hart intended to use his rifle for hunting, the district court
deemed that evidence not credible. This finding was not clearly erro-
neous. Thus, the court did not err in refusing the reduction, as Hart
failed to meet his burden of proving his eligibility for a § 2K2.1(a)(6)
reduction. See United States v. Harris, 882 F.2d 902, 907 (4th Cir.
1989).

                     2
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Hart's conviction and sen-
tence. 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

                    3