Court Opinion

ID: 1000610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:43:18.919668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:15.083563
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4318

EDWARD RAY SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-97-347)

Submitted: November 30, 1999

Decided: January 12, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John B. Mann, LEVIT, MANN & HALLIGAN, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, S. David
Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Edward Ray Smith appeals from his conviction, following his con-
ditional guilty plea, of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18
U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1999). Finding no reversible error,
we affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not
err when it denied Smith's motion to suppress. See United States v.
Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613, 616-18 (4th Cir. 1997); see also United States
v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 729-30 (4th Cir. 1993). Smith failed to raise
a timely objection to the introduction of Officer Graves' statement
and failed to challenge the reasonableness of Officer Bingham's order
for him to exit his vehicle; he also failed to timely object to the offi-
cers' search under the car mat where the weapon was found. Neither
the admission of the statement nor the search was plainly erroneous.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); see also Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S.
106, 110-11 (1977) (at a traffic stop, police may lawfully order a
driver out of his vehicle); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164,
172-75 (1974) (hearsay evidence admissible at suppression hearings);
United States v. Sakyi, 160 F.3d 164, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1998) (permit-
ting "frisk" of vehicle if the officer has an objectively reasonable sus-
picion of a potentially dangerous circumstance).

Smith waived his right to appeal issues other than the denial of his
suppression motion, so we decline to consider the propriety of the dis-
trict court's refusal to grant a downward departure from Smith's
guidelines sentence.

We affirm Smith's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2