UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4533
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALFRED SANTOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CR-04-19)
Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 6, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Walter B. Dalton,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Research and
Writing Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Damon A. King, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alfred Santos pled guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of
a child, but reserved the right to appeal the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress his statements to an officer of
the United States Army Criminal Investigation Division. Santos was
sentenced to ninety-eight months imprisonment. He appeals the
district court’s denial of his suppression motion. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
Santos alleges that his statement should have been
suppressed because it was not voluntary and was obtained in
violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Specifically, he contends that he did not understand English well
enough to understand the Miranda warnings, that he was intimidated
by a gun in the interrogator’s office, that he confessed in
exchange for a promise of leniency, and that he was under duress
during the interrogation due to pain and pain medication. 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 conclude that the district court did
- 2 -
not err in finding Santos’ statement was voluntary, and thus the
motion to suppress was properly denied.
Because Santos’ claims fail on appeal, we affirm his
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 -