US v. Ildefonso Maldonado-Gonzalez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00019-RLV-DCK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998661982].. [10-5157]

Appeal: 10-5157

Document: 38

Date Filed: 08/24/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ILDEFONSO MALDONADO-GONZALEZ, a/k/a Gabriel Rivera-Vega,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00019-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted:

July 29, 2011

Decided:

August 24, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, J. George Guise,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-5157

Document: 38

Date Filed: 08/24/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ildefonso Maldonado-Gonzalez entered a guilty plea to
possession

of

a

pseudoephedrine

knowing

it

would

be

used

to

manufacture a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(c)(2)

(2006),

reserving

the

right

to

challenge

the

district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the contraband
seized during the search of his vehicle.

Maldonado-Gonzalez

claims he did not give his consent to the police officer to
search his vehicle.

We affirm.

In reviewing the district court’s denial of MaldonadoGonzalez’s suppression motion, we review the district court’s
factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de
novo.

See United States v. Blake, 571 F.3d 331, 338 (4th Cir.

2009).

A factual finding is clearly erroneous if this court “on

the

entire

evidence

is

left

with

the

definite

conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

and

firm

United States v.

Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Gonzalez’s

Because the district court denied Maldonado-

motion,

we

review

favorable to the Government.
210, 217 (4th Cir. 2008).
credibility determinations.

the

evidence

in

the

light

most

United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d

We also defer to the district court’s
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d

210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008).

2

Appeal: 10-5157

Document: 38

Date Filed: 08/24/2011

Although

the

Fourth

Page: 3 of 3

Amendment

generally

prohibits

warrantless searches, the general requirement for a warrant does
not

apply

where

Schneckloth
States

v.

v.

valid

consent

Bustamonte,

412

Buckner,

473

F.3d

to

the

U.S.
551,

search

218,

219

553–54

is

given.

(1973);

(4th

Cir.

United
2007).

“Consent to search is valid if it is (1) knowing and voluntary
and (2) given by one with authority to consent.”

Buckner, 473

F.3d at 554 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Whether a defendant’s consent to a search is voluntary is a
factual

question

determined

under

the

totality

of

the

circumstances and, accordingly, is reviewed under the clearly
erroneous

standard.

Bustamonte,

412

U.S.

at

248–49;

United

States v. Jones, 356 F.3d 529, 533 n.* (4th Cir. 2004).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the

Government,

we

conclude

that

the

district

court

did

not

clearly err in determining that Maldonado-Gonzalez voluntarily
consented to the search of his vehicle.

Because the district

court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, we affirm
the

judgment

of

conviction.

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