US v. Robert Dagnan
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT GERALD DAGNAN, a/k/a Gerald Robert Dagnan, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:06-cr-00002-JPJ-PMS-1)
August 29, 2008
September 16, 2008
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Julie C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Robert Dagnan appeals his convictions on five counts relating to the manufacture and possession with intent to
Dagnan contends that the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to an officer, allegedly without Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) warnings, based upon a credibility finding. error, we affirm. We review the district court's factual findings Finding no
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court's legal determinations de novo. Ornelas v. United States,
517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). The evidence is construed in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party below. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). Dagnan contends that the district court erred in finding that he was given Miranda warnings and there was no basis to credit the officer's testimony that he gave Dagnan Miranda warnings over his own testimony that none were given. Dagnan particularly points to the evidence that he was not asked to sign a Miranda waiver and that the officer did not have his badge case with the warning card, which the officer said he always uses to advise arrestees of their Miranda rights, with him in court. district court did not give specific Dagnan contends that the reasons to support its
credibility determination, such as a conflict in testimony or demeanor of the witnesses. This court does not "weigh the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses." 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d
Here, there is not any reason appearing The
on the record to disturb the court's credibility finding.
district court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, listen to their testimony, and was in the best position to make the credibility finding. Based on this determination, the district
court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?