United States v. Cooper , 68 F. App'x 502 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANDRE RAMON COOPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-261)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B.
Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Andre Cooper appeals his conviction following his conditional
guilty plea to being a felon in possession of firearms, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). Cooper
preserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress evidence. Finding no error, we affirm the denial
of Cooper’s motion to suppress.
Cooper contends the district court erred in denying his motion
to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his
vehicle. This Court reviews the factual findings underlying the
denial of a motion to suppress for clear error, while reviewing the
legal determinations de novo. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d
868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992).
Cooper alleges the evidence at the suppression hearing showed
he consented to only a limited search. The district court, in
denying the motion, relied on its assessment of the credibility of
the witnesses in determining that Cooper consented to the search of
the vehicle which resulted in the discovery of a suspected
controlled substance and consequently a firearm on his person.
Thus, we find Cooper has not shown the district court clearly erred
in denying his motion.
Accordingly, we affirm Cooper’s conviction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3