United States v. Charles M. Russell ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-4410
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CHARLES T. RUSSELL, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.    Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
    (CR-98-483-DKC)
    Submitted:   January 28, 2000          Decided:     February 11, 2000
    Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Beth M. Farber, Chief Assis-
    tant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
    Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Gina L. Simms, Assis-
    tant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM
    Charles T. Russell appeals his conviction and 292 month sen-
    tence following his guilty plea to possession with intent to dis-
    tribute crack cocaine in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (1994).
    Russell asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion
    to suppress evidence discovered following an encounter between
    Russell and police officers while he sat in his car in a parking
    lot.
    Our review of the record discloses that the district court
    properly concluded the encounter was consensual. See United States
    v. Gray, 
    883 F.2d 320
    , 322-23 (4th Cir. 1989).        Because we agree
    with the district court that there was no seizure, all evidence
    recovered subsequent to the encounter was admissible.         The court
    therefore    properly   denied   Russell’s   motion   to   suppress   the
    evidence.
    Accordingly, we affirm Russell’s conviction and sentence.       We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument could not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-4410

Filed Date: 2/11/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014