Court Opinion

ID: 9405263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:48.376189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.568516
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4215      Doc: 23         Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4215

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHATAN JUNE MAULTSBY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

                                               No. 22-4217

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHATAN MAULTSBY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00194-LCB-1; 1:21-cr-00031-
        LCB-1)

        Submitted: April 28, 2023                                         Decided: June 26, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4215      Doc: 23         Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Eugene E. Lester III, SHARPLESS MCCLEARN LESTER DUFFY, PA,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney,
        Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4215       Doc: 23         Filed: 06/26/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In these consolidated appeals, Chatan June Maultsby appeals the judgment of

        conviction following his conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted

        felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and the judgment revoking his

        term of supervised release for a prior firearm conviction based on the instant conviction

        and imposing a new term of imprisonment. In his plea agreement, Maultsby reserved the

        right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm

        seized during the search of his vehicle. On appeal, Maultsby argues that the court erred in

        finding that the search of his vehicle did not occur before officers obtained a search warrant,

        specifically challenging the district court’s decision to credit the officers’ testimony over

        that of Maultsby when making this ruling. We affirm.

               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’s credibility

        findings are not clearly erroneous. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to

        the Government, we further conclude that the district court did not err in denying the

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4215      Doc: 23          Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

        motion to suppress the evidence discovered in Maultsby’s vehicle, as it credited the

        testimony of the officers that they discovered the firearm in Maultsby’s vehicle only after

        executing a valid search warrant.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. 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