United States v. Gardner , 422 F. App'x 245 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4538
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    GERALD GARDNER,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
    Judge. (1:09-cr-00619-JFM-1)
    Submitted:   March 21, 2011                 Decided:   April 7, 2011
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Melissa M. Phinn, LAW OFFICE OF MELISSA PHINN, Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellant.     Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
    Attorney, Thiruvendran Vignarajah, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gerald Gardner pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
    agreement,     to     one    count      of     possession        with      the    intent       to
    distribute     heroin,           in   violation            of   21    U.S.C.A.         § 841(a)
    (West 2006     &    Supp.     2010),        and    was     sentenced      to     180   months’
    imprisonment.        In the plea agreement, Gardner reserved the right
    to   challenge      the     district         court’s       denial    of    the    motion       to
    suppress evidence seized from his vehicle.                           Gardner contends on
    appeal that the district court erred in denying the motion to
    suppress.     We affirm.
    In reviewing the district court’s denial of Gardner’s
    suppression motion, we review the court’s factual findings for
    clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.                            United States v.
    Blake,   
    571 F.3d 331
    ,      338     (4th     Cir.     2009),      cert.      denied,
    
    130 S. Ct. 1104
          (2010).           Because      the    district       court    denied
    Gardner’s     motion,       we     review     the     evidence       in   the     light    most
    favorable to the Government.                  United States v. Farrior, 
    535 F.3d 210
    , 217 (4th Cir. 2008).               We also defer to the district court’s
    credibility determinations.                  United States v. Abu Ali, 
    528 F.3d 210
    , 232 (4th Cir. 2008).
    The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the
    people   to    be     secure . . . against                 unreasonable        searches       and
    seizures.”     U.S. Const. amend. IV.                  This guarantee requires that
    “searches     be    conducted         pursuant        to    a   warrant     issued       by    an
    2
    independent judicial officer.”                           California v. Carney, 
    471 U.S. 386
    ,       390    (1985).            There    are,        however,         “a     few    specifically
    established         and       well-delineated             exceptions”             to    this    general
    rule.       California v. Acevedo, 
    500 U.S. 565
    , 580 (1991) (internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the
    transcript of the suppression hearing and the parties’ briefs,
    we   conclude        that      the     district          court       did    not    err    in    denying
    Gardner’s motion to suppress.                            The record amply supports the
    district court’s finding that a law enforcement officer asked
    Gardner      for     consent         to    search        his     vehicle        and     that    Gardner
    voluntarily          consented         to     the        search.            See    Schneckloth         v.
    Bustamonte,         
    412 U.S. 218
    ,        219,    227    (1973)         (recognizing          that
    consent      is     an    exception          to    the    warrant          requirement         and    that
    voluntariness            of     consent           depends       on     the      totality        of    the
    circumstances);           United          States     v.     Lattimore,          
    87 F.3d 647
    ,    650
    (4th       Cir.    1996)       (en    banc)        (listing          factors       appropriate        for
    consideration            in    reviewing           whether        consent         was    voluntarily
    given). *
    *
    Because we conclude that the evidence permitted the
    district court to conclude that Gardner voluntarily consented to
    the search of his vehicle, we need not evaluate whether the
    officers involved also possessed probable cause to conduct the
    search.
    3
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.
    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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-4538

Citation Numbers: 422 F. App'x 245

Judges: Duncan, Per Curiam, Shedd, Wynn

Filed Date: 4/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023