US v. Branden White

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00021-nkm-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998482838] [10-4278]

Download PDF
US v. Branden White Doc. 0 Case: 10-4278 Document: 30 Date Filed: 12/10/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4278 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRANDEN ALTOMORRE WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00021-nkm-1) Submitted: November 15, 2010 Decided: December 10, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Ronald M. Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Joseph D. Platania, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-4278 Document: 30 Date Filed: 12/10/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Branden Altomorre White pled guilty to possession of a firearm by of an 18 unlawful U.S.C. user of a controlled (2006). He substance, reserved in the violation 922(g)(3) right to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to suppress. We affirm. In reviewing the district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, this court reviews the district court's factual findings for clear error, and its legal determinations de novo. United States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481 (4th Cir. 2008). facts are reviewed "in the light most favorable to The the prevailing party below." 623, 628 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in denying White's motion to suppress. Accordingly, dispense with oral we affirm White's the conviction. facts and We legal argument because contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?