Court Opinion

ID: 999125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:20:54.200727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:14.718745
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 98-4625

DONALD HUGH FORREST, a/k/a Posey,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CR-96-463)

Submitted: June 8, 1999

Decided: June 29, 1999

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Dale Warren Dover, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Gene Rossi, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Karen Flint, Special Assistant United States Attor-
ney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Donald Hugh Forrest pled guilty to conspiracy to distrib-
ute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). On appeal, he
challenges the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the
indictment for improper venue and his motion to suppress evidence.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

A district court's ruling on a motion to dismiss for improper venue
is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Newsom , 9 F.3d 337, 338
(4th Cir. 1993). When the charge is conspiracy, venue is proper in any
district in which an act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred. See
United States v. Al-Talib, 55 F.3d 923, 928 (4th Cir. 1995). When the
motion to dismiss for improper venue is a pretrial motion, only the
indictment may be considered. Evidence beyond the face of the
indictment should not be considered. See United States v. Jensen, 93
F.3d 667, 669 (9th Cir. 1996). Because the indictment alleged acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy that occurred in the Eastern District of
Virginia, we find that the pretrial motion to dismiss was properly
denied.

We also find that Government investigators had reasonable suspi-
cion to seize the packages Forrest left at a private mail service. We
find that the continued detention of the packages until a probable
cause determination could be made was not unreasonable. See United
States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249, 252-53 (1970); United States
v. LaFrance, 879 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, we affirm Forrest's conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2