US v. Gordon Penn
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00016-JLK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [16-4481]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
GORDON LAWRENCE PENN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00016-JLK-1)
February 9, 2017
February 15, 2017
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia,
John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney,
R. Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Gordon Lawrence Penn appeals from his convictions and 61month sentence imposed following his conditional guilty plea to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012).
On appeal, Penn challenges only the
seized by law enforcement during the search of a vehicle he was
driving when he was stopped for a traffic infraction, as well as
statements he later made to law enforcement.
Finding no error,
“When considering a district court’s denial of a motion to
suppress, we review the [trial] court’s factual findings for
clear error and all legal conclusions de novo.”
v. Stover, 808 F.3d 991, 994 (4th Cir. 2015).
Government prevailed on the suppression issue below, we construe
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable
specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to that
Pg: 3 of 3
United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 226, 241-42
(4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
authority to do so.
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181
(1990); United States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650 (4th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
“The government has the burden of proving
consent[,]” however, and “[w]e review for clear error a district
court’s determination that a search [was] consensual . . . [and]
apply a subjective test to analyze whether consent was given,
looking to the totality of the circumstances.”
Robertson, 736 F.3d 677, 680 (4th Cir. 2013).
United States v.
In this case, the
district court found that Penn consented to the search of the
vehicle he was driving and, thus, that the ensuing search was
We have reviewed the record and have considered
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?