United States v. Charles Ashe, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Charles Ashe, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4498
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES ANTHONY ASHE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:11-cr-00659-DKC-1)
Submitted:
March 28, 2013
Decided:
April 4, 2013
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy J. Sullivan, BRENNAN SULLIVAN & MCKENNA LLP, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United
States Attorney, Paul Nitze, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Charles
Anthony
Ashe,
Jr.,
appeals
his
conviction
following his conditional guilty plea, pursuant to a written
plea
agreement,
controlled
to
dangerous
841(a)(1) (2006).
possession
with
substances,
in
intent
to
distribute
of
21
violation
U.S.C.
On appeal, Ashes counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether
the
district
vehicle.
Finding no error, we affirm.
to
considering
suppress,
during
in
the
motion
found
erred
suppress
In
drugs
court
the
we
denying
warrantless
district
review
his
courts
the
motion
to
search
of
his
denial
of
the
district
courts
legal
determinations de novo and its factual determinations for clear
error.
United States v. Buckner, 473 F.3d 551, 553 (4th Cir.
2007).
Since the district court denied the defendants motion
below, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to
the [G]overnment.
See United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328,
337 (4th Cir. 2008).
[W]e treat a traffic stop, whether based on probable
cause or reasonable suspicion, under the standard set forth in
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 . . . (1968).
Digiovanni,
analysis
650
F.3d
involves
498,
first
506
(4th
Cir.
determining
2
United States v.
2011).
whether
The
the
Terry
police
officers
action
was
justified
at
its
inception.
Id.
We
conclude that the officers stop of Ashe was justified by their
observance of him driving a vehicle without wearing a seatbelt.
The
second
prong
of
Terry
requires
analyz[ing]
whether the police officers subsequent actions were reasonably
related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop.
Id.
We conclude that the district court did not err in finding
that the police officers observance of marijuana residue on the
floorboard of the vehicle was reasonable.
Under the automobile
exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment,
once
the
police
officer
probable
observed
cause
marijuana
contained
contraband
warrant.
See United States v. Kelly, 592 F.3d 586, 589 (4th
search
that
the
the
the
had
could
believe
residue,
officers
and
to
the
vehicle
vehicle
without
Cir. 2010) (finding, post-Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009),
that if a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to
believe
it
contains
contraband,
the
Fourth
Amendment
thus
permits police to search the vehicle without more) (internal
quotation
marks
and
brackets
omitted).
To
the
extent
Ashe
challenges the officers credibility, [w]e . . . defer to a
district courts credibility determinations, for it is the role
of
the
district
credibility
court
during
to
observe
pre-trial
witnesses
motion
to
and
weigh
suppress.
their
United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
3
quotation marks omitted).
Thus, we conclude that the district
court did not err in denying Ashes motion to suppress the drugs
and other physical evidence recovered during the search.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Ashe, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Ashe requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Ashe.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
