US v. Thomas Harris

Filing 920090820

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4896

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS JONATHAN HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:07-cr-00023-nkm-1)

Submitted:

August 12, 2009

Decided:

August 20, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, R. Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Thomas plea agreement, in Jonathan to one Harris of pleaded guilty, of pursuant an to a

count of 26

possession

unregistered Harris

firearm,

violation

U.S.C.

§ 5861(d)

(2006).

entered a conditional guilty plea and reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm. This court reviews the district court's factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court's legal determinations de novo. 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Grossman,

When a suppression motion has

been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. Id. This court gives due regard to the district

court's opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses and does not review credibility determinations. 65 F.3d 1137, 1142 (4th Cir. 1995). convinces us that the district court See United States v. Lowe, Our review of the record did not err in denying

Harris' motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm Harris' 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

2