US v. Christopher Tavenner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00530-CMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998466107] [10-4215]

US v. Christopher Tavenner

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4215 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/16/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4215 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER D. TAVENNER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00530-CMH-1) Submitted: October 6, 2010 Decided: November 16, 2010

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Brian L. Mizer, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Jason H. Poole, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4215 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/16/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Christopher D. Tavenner appeals his conviction for one count of possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 844 (2006).

He claims the magistrate judge erred in denying

his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search as an incident to a lawful arrest. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews the factual findings underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo. 193 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 187, The evidence is construed in the light United States v. Probable cause to

most favorable to the prevailing party below. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). arrest is defined as:

facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense. The evidence needed to establish probable cause is more than a mere suspicion, rumor, or strong reason to suspect but less than evidence sufficient to convict. United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 1070, 1073-74 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and citations omitted). "[T]he district

court is entitled to respect the inferences drawn by officers from their `own experience in deciding whether probable cause exists.'" United States v. White, 549 F.3d 946, 951 (4th Cir.

2

Case: 10-4215 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/16/2010

Page: 3

2008)

(quoting

Ornelas

v.

United

States,

517

U.S.

690,

700

(1996)). We conclude that the facts, as found by the magistrate judge and affirmed by the district court, support the finding that there was probable cause for the arrest. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment because the search was a lawful search as an incident to the arrest. 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