United States v. Scovens
This text of United States v. Scovens (United States v. Scovens) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4971
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLOS SCOVENS, a/k/a Lucky,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CR-05-35-WDQ)
Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fred Warren Bennett, Gary E. Bair, BENNETT & BAIR, LLP, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Carlos Scovens pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base pursuant to a conditional guilty plea,
reserving the right to challenge the denial of his motion to
suppress. On appeal, he contends that the warrant was overbroad
and was executed in an unconstitutional manner. We have reviewed
the record and the parties’ briefs on appeal, and we find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court in its order denying Scovens’ motion to
suppress. See United States v. Scovens, No. CR-05-35-WDQ (D. Md.
June 14, 2005; entered June 15, 2005). 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
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Scovens, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-scovens-ca4-2006.