United States v. Suggs ( 2000 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                    No. 00-4061
    MCKENLY RICHARD SUGGS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation.
    (CR-99-331-HNM)
    Submitted: June 20, 2000
    Decided: July 6, 2000
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    James J. Gitomer, CARDIN & GITOMER, P.A., Baltimore, Mary-
    land, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,
    Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Mary-
    land, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    McKenly Richard Suggs appeals his conviction and sentence fol-
    lowing his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine
    base. We affirm.
    The only issue before the court is the propriety of the district
    court's denial of Suggs's motion to suppress cocaine base found in his
    car.* Suggs's plea agreement reserved the right to appeal the adverse
    ruling on his motion to suppress the drugs, recovered during a consen-
    sual search following a traffic stop. We have reviewed the record and
    the district court's order and conclude that the court did not err in
    finding Suggs was not illegally detained and that his consent to the
    search of the vehicle was voluntary. See United States v. Sullivan, 
    138 F.3d 126
    , 131 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Lattimore, 
    87 F.3d 647
    , 650-51 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    _________________________________________________________________
    *Judge Frederic N. Smalkin presided over the motion to suppress. The
    case was later reassigned to Senior Judge Herbert N. Maletz.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-4061

Filed Date: 7/6/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021