United States v. East

324 F. App'x 237
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 28, 2009
Docket08-4866
StatusUnpublished

This text of 324 F. App'x 237 (United States v. East) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. East, 324 F. App'x 237 (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Russell A. East was convicted and sentenced to forty-six months in prison after entering a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). East’s guilty plea was conditioned on his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress the firearm seized by police during the search of his home. On appeal, East challenges only the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court reviews the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s legal determinations de novo. See United States v. Gray, 491 F.3d 138, 143-44 (4th Cir.2007) (internal citation omitted), ce rt. denied, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1226, 170 L.Ed.2d 77 (2008). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. See United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th *238 Cir.2006). With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying East’s motion to suppress.

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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Thomas Edward Uzenski
434 F.3d 690 (Fourth Circuit, 2006)
McGinest v. GTE Service Corp.
128 S. Ct. 1226 (Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
324 F. App'x 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-east-ca4-2009.