United States v. Redman , 18 F. App'x 168 ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-4651
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KARL ALPHEUS REDMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-189)
Submitted: May 22, 2001 Decided: September 11, 2001
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John C. Kiyonaga, KIYONAGA & KIYONAGA, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Maurice Eitel
Stucke, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Karl Redman pled guilty to possession with intent to distrib-
ute hashish oil. His plea was conditioned upon his right to appeal
the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. For the
reasons that follow, we find Redman’s claims on appeal fail, and
thus we affirm his conviction.
First, we do not find that the district court’s factual deter-
minations at the suppression hearing were clearly erroneous or that
its legal decision to deny the motion was in error. United States
v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). Second, we find
that the district court did specifically find that Redman consented
to a search of his passenger compartment on the train and, there-
fore, whether officers had probable cause to search or not is
irrelevant. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973).
Accordingly, we affirm.
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