United States v. Maddox

124 F. App'x 206
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 29, 2005·No. 04-4743·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Monrail Lashun Maddox pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). Maddox reserved the right to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and review its legal determinations de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998). Finding no error, we affirm.

We find there was no clear error in the district court’s findings. Wé further find the legal determinations are correct. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. 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

United States v. Maddox, 124 F. App'x 206 (4th Cir. 2005).

124 F. App'x 206 (United States v. Maddox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ornelas v. United States
517 U.S. 690 (Supreme Court, 1996)
United States v. Harry Seidman
156 F.3d 542 (Fourth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Rusher
966 F.2d 868 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)