US v. Richard Cabey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00413-TDS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998630637].. [10-5170]

Appeal: 10-5170

Document: 23

Date Filed: 07/13/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICHARD EDWARD CABEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem.
Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00413-TDS-1)

Submitted:

June 30, 2011

Decided:

July 13, 2011

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Leonard, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN LEONARD, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-5170

Document: 23

Date Filed: 07/13/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Richard Edward Cabey appeals from his conviction for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C.

§§ 922(g),

924(e)

(2006).

Cabey

pleaded

guilty

but

reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle after an
investigatory stop.
This

Finding no error, we affirm.

court

reviews

factual

findings

underlying

the

district court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error
United States v. Blake, 571 F.3d

and legal conclusions de novo.

331, 338 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1104 (2010).
A factual finding is clearly erroneous if this court “on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.”
532

F.3d

326,

omitted).
evidence

337

(4th

However,
is

entirety,”

“if

plausible
the

Cir.

court

the

2008)

in
will

United States v. Harvey,
(internal

district

light

of

not

quotation

court’s

the

reverse

account

record
the

marks
of

the

viewed

in

its

district

court’s

finding even if it would have “decided the fact differently.”
United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
words,

when

district

two

court’s

views

of

choice

the

evidence

between

2

them

are

In other

permissible,

cannot

be

“the

clearly

Appeal: 10-5170

Document: 23

erroneous.”

Id.

Date Filed: 07/13/2011

(internal

Page: 3 of 3

quotation

marks

and

alteration

omitted).
We have reviewed the transcript of the hearing on the
motion to suppress, the district court’s memorandum opinion and
order

denying

appendix.

the

motion,

and

the

parties’

briefs

and

joint

Having reviewed these materials, we conclude that the

district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
We

therefore

affirm

the

judgment.

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