United States v. Jaquinn Geathers ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-4080
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAQUINN GEATHERS, a/k/a Edward Bynoe,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
    (CR-98-179-3)
    Submitted:   August 31, 1999                 Decided:   October 18, 1999
    Before ERVIN,* NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert P. Geary, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,
    United States Attorney, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    *
    Judge Ervin was assigned to the panel in this case but died
    prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by
    a quorum of the panel pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 46
    (d).
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    JaQuinn Geathers appeals his conviction entered after a bench
    trial for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and
    aiding   and   abetting   that   offense   in   violation   of   
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (1994), and 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
     (1994).        On appeal, Geathers
    contends only that the district court erred in denying his motion
    to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of a search of his
    baggage.     See United States v. Han, 
    74 F.3d 537
    , 540 (4th Cir.
    1996); United States v. Williams, 
    10 F.3d 1070
    , 1077 (4th Cir.
    1993).     We have reviewed the record and the claims of error ad-
    vanced in this appeal, and find that the district court did not err
    in denying Geathers’ motion.      See Florida v. Royer, 
    460 U.S. 491
    ,
    497 (1983); United States v. Gordon, 
    895 F.2d 932
    , 937 (4th Cir.
    1990).     Accordingly, Geathers’ conviction and sentence are af-
    firmed. 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
    2