UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4106
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ZENOBIA B. PENN, a/k/a Tiny,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CR-01-115-L)
Submitted: May 31, 2005 Decided: June 21, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold I. Glaser, GLASER & SOLOMON, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, United States Attorney,
Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Zenobia B. Penn appeals her conviction after a jury trial
of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2000). She asserts that the district court erred in
denying her motions to suppress evidence and to exclude her grand
jury testimony. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint
appendix, the transcript of the district court’s ruling from the
bench, and the court’s order denying the motions. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
With regard to the denial of the motion to suppress, we
conclude that the district court did not err. Penn’s airport
encounter with law enforcement officials did not amount to a
seizure under the Fourth Amendment. See Ornelas v. United States,
517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996) (stating standard of review for denial of
motion to suppress); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 436-37
(1991) (providing standard to determine whether police-citizen
encounter amounts to seizure); United States v. Weaver, 282 F.3d
302, 309-10 (4th Cir. 2002) (same and setting forth factors to
consider). We also agree with the district court that Penn
voluntarily consented to a search of her purse and person. See
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 558 (1980) (finding that
courts should consider age, maturity, and intelligence of defendant
in determining whether consent to search was voluntary); United
- 2 -
States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)
(same and noting that “conditions under which the consent to search
was given” also relevant). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion
in the district court’s denial of Penn’s motion to exclude her
grand jury testimony. See United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305,
312 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm Penn’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 -