Court Opinion

ID: 9394274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 21:00:23.718116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.572651
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4538     Doc: 54        Filed: 05/11/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 21-4538

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KENDRICK OMAR COBB,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:18-cr-00683-HMH-1)

        Submitted: March 31, 2023                                     Decided: May 11, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: David A. Brown, Sr., DABROWNLAW, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina,
        for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Leesa Washington, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
        South Carolina, for Appellee.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4538      Doc: 54          Filed: 05/11/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Kendrick Omar Cobb appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession of

        a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),

        924(a)(2). On appeal, Cobb argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to

        suppress statements he made during a custodial interrogation in which he had counsel but

        was not informed of his right to counsel pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

        (1966).

               When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the

        court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.

        Pulley, 987 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2021). We consider the evidence in the light most

        favorable to the Government and “must also give due weight to inferences drawn from

        those facts by resident judges and law enforcement officers.” Id. (internal quotation marks

        omitted). We “particularly defer to a district court’s credibility determinations” and will

        only “reverse a lower court’s finding of fact” if we are “left with the definite and firm

        conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err by

        denying Cobb’s motion to suppress because Cobb’s retained counsel was present for the

        duration of the interrogation.      See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 466 (“The presence of

        counsel[] . . . would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of

        police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self-incrimination].”);

        Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485-86 (1981) (“The Fifth Amendment right identified

        in Miranda is the right to have counsel present at any custodial interrogation.”).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4538      Doc: 54         Filed: 05/11/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

                                                     3