UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4269
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MAURICE ALONZA WHITLOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CR-03-175)
Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald L. Smith, SMITH & SMITH-ASHLEY, Hampton, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J.
Elston, Laura M. Everhart, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Alonza Whitlock appeals from his conviction for
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base for which he
received a 144-month sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Whitlock’s sole contention on appeal is that the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence.* Legal
conclusions underlying the denial of a motion to suppress are
reviewed de novo and factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United
States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992).
We have fully reviewed the materials submitted by the
parties, including the transcript of the suppression hearing and
the district court’s opinion stated from the bench, and find no
error in the district court’s order denying Whitlock’s motion to
suppress evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.
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
*
Whitlock has not raised a claim under United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), or Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.
2531 (2004). Indeed, he raises no challenge to his sentence.
Thus, he has waived review of the sentence.
- 2 -