UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4790
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREG SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-02-215)
Submitted: December 10, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph O. Gregory, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH O. GREGORY, SR.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United
States Attorney, Michael R. Pauze, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Greg Smith was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to
commit bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and use of a firearm
during a crime of violence. On appeal, Smith, through counsel,
raises two issues. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, Smith alleges that his June 5, 2002, statement
given to FBI agents should have been suppressed because it was
obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion
to suppress for clear error and its legal determinations de novo.
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United
States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). When a
suppression motion has been denied, this court construes the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United
States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). Reviewing
the evidence as required, we find no reversible error.
Second, Smith alleges that the district court should have
granted his motion for production of FBI agents’ notes from a
September 26, 2002, interview with Smith that were used to prepare
an FBI Form 302 Report. While a defendant is entitled to
disclosure of the substance of any of his oral statements the
government intends to use at trial, the government need not
disclose “rough notes” of the defendant’s interview that are later
incorporated into final 302 Reports when the notes are not
- 2 -
inconsistent with the 302 Report. See United States v. Brown, 303
F.3d 582, 590-91 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Muhammad, 120
F.3d 688, 699 (7th Cir. 1997); cf. United States v. Hinton, 719
F.2d 711 (4th Cir. 1983). Because the district court conducted an
in camera review of the notes and the 302 Reports and found no
inconsistencies, the court did not err by denying the motion for
production of the notes.
Because Smith’s claims fail on appeal, we affirm his
convictions. We also deny Smith’s motion for reconsideration of
the denial of his motion for leave to file a supplemental pro se
brief. 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 -