United States v. Chatan Maultsby ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4217 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHATAN JUNE MAULTSBY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-4217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHATAN MAULTSBY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00194-LCB-1; 1:21-cr-00031-
LCB-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4217 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Eugene E. Lester III, SHARPLESS MCCLEARN LESTER DUFFY, PA,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney,
Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4217 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Chatan June Maultsby appeals the judgment of
conviction following his conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and the judgment revoking his
term of supervised release for a prior firearm conviction based on the instant conviction
and imposing a new term of imprisonment. In his plea agreement, Maultsby reserved the
right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm
seized during the search of his vehicle. On appeal, Maultsby argues that the court erred in
finding that the search of his vehicle did not occur before officers obtained a search warrant,
specifically challenging the district court’s decision to credit the officers’ testimony over
that of Maultsby when making this ruling. We affirm.
When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the
court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Pulley, 987 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2021). We consider the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government and “must also give due weight to inferences drawn from
those facts by resident judges and law enforcement officers.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). We “particularly defer to a district court’s credibility determinations” and will
only “reverse a lower court’s finding of fact” if we are “left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court’s credibility
findings are not clearly erroneous. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government, we further conclude that the district court did not err in denying the
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4217 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
motion to suppress the evidence discovered in Maultsby’s vehicle, as it credited the
testimony of the officers that they discovered the firearm in Maultsby’s vehicle only after
executing a valid search warrant.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4