US v. Russell East
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RUSSELL A. EAST, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00060-gec-jgw-1)
March 26, 2009
April 28, 2009
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Andrea Harris, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Ryan L. Souders, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 search to of suppress his the firearm On seized East by police during only the the
district court's denial of his motion to suppress. the district court's judgment. This court reviews the district
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), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1226 (2008). When a
suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. See United With
States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006).
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 2 because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?