US v. Kelvin Washington

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00419-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999217656].. [12-4915]

Appeal: 12-4915

Doc: 29

Filed: 10/15/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4915

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KELVIN LENARD WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00419-WO-1)

Submitted:

July 12, 2013

Decided:

October 15, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Quander, Jr., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Robert A.J.
Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4915

Doc: 29

Filed: 10/15/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Kelvin

Lenard

Washington

was

sentenced

to

seventy

months’ imprisonment after entering a conditional guilty plea to
one

count

of

violation

being

of

18

a

felon

U.S.C.

§

in

possession

922(g)(1)

of

firearm,

He

(2006).

a

appeals

in
the

district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the firearm,
contending the search in which it was discovered was conducted
without valid consent.
This Court reviews the district court’s denial of a
motion

to

suppress

in

the

light

most

favorable

to

the

Government.

United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 217 (4th

Cir. 2008).

We review the district court’s finding of voluntary

consent

a

to

warrantless

search

for

clear

error.

United

States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d 932, 938 (4th Cir. 1990).

We also

review the district court’s credibility determinations for clear
error.

United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1169 (4th Cir.

1995).
The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits warrantless
searches, however, an exception exists for searches conducted
pursuant to valid consent.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S.

218, 219 (1973); Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 401 (4th Cir.
2001).
and

Consent to search is valid only if it is given freely

voluntarily.

Trulock,

275

F.3d

at

401.

In

establishing

whether consent to search was given freely and voluntarily, the
2

Appeal: 12-4915

Doc: 29

Filed: 10/15/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

Government bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the
evidence, and the district court must consider the totality of
the circumstances.
Here,

Id. at 401 & n.4.

the

district

A

court

found

that

Washington’s

girlfriend voluntarily consented to a search of their residence
that revealed the prohibited firearm.

The court found testimony

from the police officer who conducted the search credible, and
conflicting testimony from Washington’s girlfriend and another
friend

incredible.

The

court

considered

various

factors

in

reaching its conclusion, such as the girlfriend’s admission that
she helped officers enter the residence, her bias resulting from
her relationship with Washington, and her level of intelligence.
On

appeal,

consented
Our

Washington

or

review

contends

alternatively

of

the

record

that

that
any

compels

his

consent

us

to

girlfriend

never

was

involuntary.

reject

Washington’s

contentions.
We conclude that the district court did not clearly
err in finding voluntary consent to the search.

Gordon, 895

F.2d

credibility

at

938.

The

district

court

made

reasoned

determinations that are entitled to deference, Murray, 65 F.3d
at

1169,

and

properly

considered

the

totality

of

the

circumstances in reaching its conclusion.

Trulock, 275 F.3d at

401.

difficulty

Accordingly,

we

conclude

3

without

that

the

Appeal: 12-4915

Doc: 29

district

Filed: 10/15/2013

court’s

decision

Pg: 4 of 4

to

deny

Washington’s

suppression

motion finds ample support in the record.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4