United States v. Ramirez , 326 F. App'x 182 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4910
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MOISES GARZA RAMIREZ,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00042-LHT-1)
Submitted: April 20, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard E. Cassady, WILLIAMS & CASSADY, PLLC, Sylva, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Moises Garza Ramirez appeals the district court’s
order denying his motions to suppress evidence seized from his
home and his statements to law enforcement officers. Ramirez
pled guilty to one count of possessing a firearm while being
illegally in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(5) (2006), but reserved the right to appeal the denial
of his suppression motions. We affirm.
Ramirez first argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his
home. This court reviews the legal conclusions underlying the
denial of a motion to suppress de novo, while it reviews the
factual findings for clear error. United States v. Moreland,
437 F.3d 424, 429 (4th Cir. 2006). Also, the evidence is
construed in the light most favorable to the Government, as the
prevailing party below. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542,
547 (4th Cir. 1998).
Consent given freely and voluntarily is a recognized
exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. See
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). “In
determining whether consent to search was freely and voluntarily
given, the totality of the circumstances surrounding the consent
must be examined.” United States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650
(4th Cir. 1996).
2
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Ramirez freely and voluntarily consented to the search of his
home and the district court properly denied his motion to
suppress with respect to the evidence seized from his home.
Ramirez next claims that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress with respect to his statements
regarding ownership of the firearm and his immigration status.
Statements obtained from a defendant during custodial
interrogation are presumptively compelled in violation of the
Fifth Amendment, unless the Government shows that law
enforcement officers adequately informed the defendant of his
rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and
obtained a waiver of those rights. United States v. Cardwell,
433 F.3d 378, 388-89 (4th Cir. 2005). We have reviewed the
record and conclude that Ramirez was not in custody for purposes
of Miranda at the time he made any of the challenged statements.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Ramirez’s
motion to suppress his statements. We therefore affirm the
judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument
as the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3