Court Opinion

ID: 9842463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-23 21:00:26.240392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:10.164674
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4124      Doc: 43         Filed: 09/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4124

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RANDALL GRAY STONEMAN, JR.,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00152-WO-1)

        Submitted: July 24, 2023                                    Decided: September 22, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J.
        Hairston, United States Attorney, Veronica L. Edmisten, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4124         Doc: 43         Filed: 09/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

                  Randall Gray Stoneman, Jr., was convicted after a trial of felony possession of

        marijuana with intent to distribute, discharging a firearm during and in relation to a drug

        trafficking crime, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and being a felon in possession

        of body armor. He was sentenced to 552 months’ imprisonment. Stoneman argues that

        the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his home

        and an audio/video recording from a law enforcement officer’s bodycam. He also argues

        that the district court erred in overruling his objections to Sentencing Guidelines

        enhancements for creating a substantial risk of bodily injury when he shot at persons he

        had reasonable cause to believe were law enforcement officers, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

        Manual § 3A1.2(c)(1), wearing body armor during the offense, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5(1),

        (2)(B), and attempted first degree murder, U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2A2.1(a)(1). We

        affirm.

                  On appeal from an order denying a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s

        legal conclusions de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and the evidence in the light

        most favorable to the Government.            United States v. Sueiro, 59 F.4th 132, 139

        (4th Cir. 2023).     A search warrant “is generally required for a search of a home.”

        Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292, 298 (2014). “Under the Fourth Amendment, a

        [search] warrant must be supported by probable cause[,]” which “requires only a fair

        probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”

        Sueiro, 59 F.4th at 139 (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “[t]here

        must . . . be some nexus between the suspected crime and the place to be searched.” United

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4124      Doc: 43          Filed: 09/22/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        States v. Orozco, 41 F.4th 403, 409 (4th Cir. 2022). “[W]hether a nexus exists is a practical,

        commonsense determination” that “may be established by the normal inferences of where

        one would likely keep the evidence being sought.” Id. (citation and internal quotation

        marks omitted). “We afford great deference to a judicial officer who issues a search

        warrant and ask only whether the judicial officer had a substantial basis for finding

        probable cause.” Sueiro, 59 F.4th at 139 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have

        reviewed the record and the district court’s decision to deny the suppression of evidence

        and conclude that there was no error.

               In evaluating Guidelines calculations, we review the district court’s factual findings

        for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Shephard, 892 F.3d 666,

        670 (4th Cir. 2018). Under the clear-error standard, “we will not disturb the district court’s

        finding unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

        committed.” United States v. Dix, 64 F.4th 230, 238 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). “The government bears the burden of proving the facts supporting [a

        sentencing] enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Andrews,

        808 F.3d 964, 968 (4th Cir. 2015); see United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631

        (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that preponderance standard “requires the trier of fact to believe

        that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence” (internal quotation

        marks omitted)). The district court made explicit findings of fact in supporting each of the

        challenged sentencing enhancements. We conclude that there was no clear error in any of

        those findings.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4124      Doc: 43        Filed: 09/22/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

              Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment of conviction. 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