UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4928
LEROY GREEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
(S. Ct. No. 99-7890)
Submitted: October 29, 1999
Decided: November 9, 1999
Decided on Remand: October 19, 2000
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL
Robert J. McAfee, MCCOTTER, MCAFEE & ASHTON, P.L.L.C.,
New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole,
United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States
Attorney, John Howarth Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
2 UNITED STATES v. GREEN
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
This Court previously affirmed Leroy Green’s conviction and sen-
tence for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to dis-
tribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). See United States v.
Green, No. 98-4928 (4th Cir. Nov. 9, 1999) (unpublished), cert.
granted, judgment vacated and remanded, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct.
2739 (2000) (remanding for further consideration in light of Dicker-
son v. United States, 530 U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 2326 (2000)).
Green’s statements to police were made after he received two
Miranda* warnings. We have reviewed the record and find that his
incriminating statements to the police were voluntary. See United
States v. Braxton, 112 F.3d 777, 780-81 (4th Cir. 1997). Thus, even
in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dickerson, the district
court did not err in denying Green’s motion to suppress and in using
these statements to determine Green’s relevant conduct for sentencing
within the statutorily authorized maximum sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm Green’s conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense 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
*Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4928
LEROY GREEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
(S. Ct. No. 99-7890)
Submitted: October 29, 1999
Decided: November 9, 1999
Decided on Remand: October 19, 2000
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL
Robert J. McAfee, MCCOTTER, MCAFEE & ASHTON, P.L.L.C.,
New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole,
United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States
Attorney, John Howarth Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
2 UNITED STATES v. GREEN
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
This Court previously affirmed Leroy Green’s conviction and sen-
tence for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to dis-
tribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). See United States v.
Green, No. 98-4928 (4th Cir. Nov. 9, 1999) (unpublished), cert.
granted, judgment vacated and remanded, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct.
2739 (2000) (remanding for further consideration in light of Dicker-
son v. United States, 530 U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 2326 (2000)).
Green’s statements to police were made after he received two
Miranda* warnings. We have reviewed the record and find that his
incriminating statements to the police were voluntary. See United
States v. Braxton, 112 F.3d 777, 780-81 (4th Cir. 1997). Thus, even
in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dickerson, the district
court did not err in denying Green’s motion to suppress and in using
these statements to determine Green’s relevant conduct for sentencing
within the statutorily authorized maximum sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm Green’s conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense 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
*Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).