UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4727
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SEAN SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(CR-02-407-MJG)
Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 21, 2004
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth W. Ravenell, SCHULMAN, TREEM, KAMINKOW, GILDEN & RAVENELL,
P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio,
United States Attorney, Jane M. Erisman, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sean Scott entered a conditional guilty plea to being a
felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). In
his plea agreement, he reserved the right to challenge the denial
of his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced Scott to
forty-one months of imprisonment, and he timely appealed.
Claiming that the police did not properly advise him of
his rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966), Scott contends that the district court erred by denying his
motion to suppress the statements he made to the police. The
district court held an evidentiary hearing at which the
investigating police officer testified that he administered Miranda
warnings before questioning Scott. Scott testified that he did not
receive Miranda warnings until after he had already made
incriminating statements. Finding the police officer more credible
than Scott, the district court denied the motion to suppress.
We review the factual findings underlying a motion to
suppress for clear error and review the legal determinations de
novo. United States v. Photogrammetric Data Servs., 259 F.3d 229,
237 (4th Cir. 2001). The district court’s decision rested on its
credibility determinations regarding the testimony at the
suppression hearing, and such credibility determinations are not
subject to appellate review. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d
56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). After reviewing the record, we find that
- 2 -
the district court did not commit clear error in denying the motion
to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm Scott’s conviction. 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
- 3 -