US v. Larry Leverett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00027-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999505171].. [14-4331]

Appeal: 14-4331

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/06/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4331

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY ALEXANDER LEVERETT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00027-CCE-1)

Submitted:

November 25, 2014

Decided:

January 6, 2015

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Michael A.
DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4331

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/06/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Larry Alexander Leverett appeals the judgment imposed
following his conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2)

(2012).

Leverett

received

a

forty-five-month

sentence.

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Leverett’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that
there

are

no

meritorious

issues

for

appeal,

but

questioning

whether the district court erred in denying Leverett’s motion to
suppress evidence seized during execution of a search warrant,
the issue preserved in the conditional plea.

Although notified

of his right to do so, Leverett has not filed a supplemental
brief.

We affirm.
When considering the denial of a suppression motion,

we review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions, and we
review its factual findings for clear error.

United States v.

Guijon-Ortiz, 660 F.3d 757, 762 (4th Cir. 2011).

Because the

Government prevailed on the suppression issue below, we construe
the

evidence

in

the

light

most

favorable

to

the

Government.

United States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 320 (4th Cir. 2004).
Rather

than

addressing

the

validity

of

the

search

warrant at issue, we exercise our discretion to proceed directly
to Leverett’s challenge to the district court’s application of
the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule set forth in
2

Appeal: 14-4331

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/06/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919-21 (1984).
States v. Andrews, 577 F.3d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 2009).

United
When an

officer acts with objective good faith within the scope of a
search

warrant

issued

by

a

magistrate,

suppression

of

the

evidence obtained by the officer does not serve the exclusionary
rule’s deterrence objective because the officer has attempted to
comply with the law.
(4th Cir. 2004).

United States v. Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 461

Accordingly, evidence obtained pursuant to a

search warrant should not be suppressed unless the officer’s
reliance on the warrant is not objectively reasonable because,
among

other

circumstances

not

relevant

here,

the

magistrate

“wholly abandoned his judicial role” when issuing the warrant or
the warrant was so facially deficient that the executing officer
could not reasonably presume it to be valid.

Leon, 468 U.S. at

923.
Applying the foregoing standards to the facts of this
case, we hold that the district court did not err by applying
the good-faith exception.

When police know the identity of a

confidential source, the warrant applicant’s statement attesting
to the source’s prior reliability in other investigations can be
sufficient to establish the source’s reliability in the present
case.

United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 193-94, 197-98 (4th

Cir. 2002).
that

the

Thus, where the warrant applicant here attested

source

had

provided

reliable
3

information

in

prior

Appeal: 14-4331

Doc: 23

investigations

Filed: 01/06/2015

and

that

the

Pg: 4 of 4

applicant

oversaw

the

source’s

controlled purchase of powder cocaine from Leverett, it cannot
be said that the magistrate “wholly abandoned his judicial role”
when issuing the warrant.
could

have

reasonably

For the same reasons, the applicant

presumed

that

the

warrant

was

valid.

Therefore, under Leon, any possible constitutional defects in
the warrant would not require exclusion of the fruits of the
search.

Accordingly, the district court properly denied the

motion to suppress.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Leverett’s conviction and sentence.

This

court requires that counsel inform Leverett, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Leverett requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Leverett.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
4