United States v. Calvin M. Whitfield ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4316
CALVIN MORRIS WHITFIELD, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-98-373)
Submitted: September 8, 1999
Decided: September 24, 1999
Before LUTTIG, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Keith N. Hurley, CAWTHORN, PICARD & ROWE, P.C., Rich-
mond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attor-
ney, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Morris Whitfield pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a) (1994). In his plea agreement, he reserved the right to appeal
the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(a)(2). On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in con-
cluding that he was not seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment
and that he voluntarily consented to a search of his bag. We have
reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error.
After a thorough review of the transcript of the hearing on the
motion to suppress, we hold that under the totality of the circum-
stances, a reasonable person in Whitfield's position would have felt
free to terminate the encounter on the bus. See Florida v. Bostick, 501
U.S. 429, 438-39 (1991); United States v. Gray , 883 F.2d 320, 322-
23 (4th Cir. 1989) (discussing factors courts consider in determining
whether seizure occurred). We also hold that Whitfield voluntarily
consented to the search of his bag where he had concealed the drugs.
See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973); United
States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650 (4th Cir. 1996) (outlining appro-
priate factors to consider). Finally, we find that Whitfield's reliance
on United States v. Washington, 151 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1998), is
misplaced because Washington is distinguishable on its facts. There-
fore, we find no error in the district court's denial of the motion to
suppress. See United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.
1992) (providing standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm Whitfield's conviction. 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