United States v. Martin , 131 F. App'x 954 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4926
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LON T. MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CR-04-116)
Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew P. Geary, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Elizabeth C. Wu, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lon T. Martin appeals his convictions for possession with
intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(2000), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000).
Martin asserts the district court erred in denying his motions to
suppress evidence obtained during his detention by police prior to
their execution of a search warrant at his residence. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s factual findings on a
suppression motion for clear error and its legal conclusions de
novo. United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir.
2005). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. United
States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 320 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied,
125 S. Ct. 867 (2005).
Martin first contends the district court erred in ruling
that officers had the required level of reasonable and
particularized suspicion to warrant his stop and detention.
However, we find the district court properly determined his
detention was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See
Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981). Martin next contends the
evidence underlying the affidavit in support of the search warrant
was illegally seized, because he had a reasonable expectation of
- 2 -
privacy in the trash located in cans situated on his property away
from the curb, and the trash collector had become a police agent.
Although Martin does not address the district court’s ruling that
even assuming the trash were illegally seized, a preponderance of
the evidence showed it would have been inevitably discovered
through lawful means, we conclude the district court did not err in
this ruling. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). Finally,
we find that the district court properly rejected Martin’s
staleness argument based on the four-day delay between issuance and
execution of the search warrant under the circumstances of this
case. See United States v. Farmer, 370 F.3d 435 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 125 S. Ct. 676 (2004).
Accordingly, the district court did not err when it
denied Martin’s motions to suppress. We therefore affirm Martin’s
convictions and sentence. 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
- 3 -