US v. Stewart

Filing 920060808

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4966

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY MARCELLOUS STEWART, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR04-252-CCB)

Submitted:

July 21, 2006

Decided:

August 8, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Jeffrey E. Risberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Gregory Welsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Marcellous Stewart entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). He reserved the right Following his the district

to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. conviction, Stewart timely appealed, challenging

court's denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, this court reviews the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. F.3d 529, 533 (4th Cir. 2004). United States v. Jones, 356

We review the facts in the light Id.

most favorable to the party that prevailed below.

Police officers discovered the incriminating evidence after being given consent to enter Stewart's home by a third party. The government to can search justify by "a a warrantless party search by showing common

permission

third

who

possessed

authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected." U.S. 164, 171 (1974). We have reviewed the record and the parties' briefs and conclude that the authority of the third party here was apparent under the circumstances and the police acted reasonably in relying on her consent. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 186 United States v. Matlock, 415

(1990); United States v. Kinney, 953 F.2d 863, 866-67 (4th Cir.

- 2 -

1992).

Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying

Stewart's motion to suppress. Therefore, we affirm Stewart's conviction. 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

- 3 -