UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4839
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYRONE BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-266)
Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: May 16, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B.
Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Bryant was convicted by a jury of one count of
unlawfully maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing and
distributing cocaine base (Count One), one count of possession with
intent to distribute 25.5 grams (net weight) of a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine hydrochloride
(Count Two), one count of possession with intent to distribute 18.2
grams (net weight) of a mixture and substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine base (Count Three), one count of
possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime (Count
Four), one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (Count
Five), one count of possession with intent to distribute 11.3 grams
(net weight) of a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of cocaine base (Count Six), one count of possession with
intent to distribute 28.5 grams (net weight) of a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine hydrochloride
(Count Seven), and one count of possession of ammunition by a felon
(Count Eight), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2),
(c)(1)(A)(I); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(c);
856(a)(1), (b) (2000). Bryant was sentenced on the various
offenses to imprisonment for a total of 420 months. We find no
error and affirm Bryant’s convictions and sentences.
- 2 -
Bryant first contends that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress.* We review the court’s factual
findings underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear
error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Johnson,
400 F.3d 187, 193 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 134 (2005).
When reviewing an issuing court’s probable cause determination,
however, we look to whether there was a substantial basis for
concluding that a search would uncover contraband or evidence of a
crime. United States v. Blackwood, 913 F.2d 139, 142 (4th Cir.
1990); see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). Great
deference should be accorded an issuing court’s assessment of the
facts in determining probable cause. Blackwood, 913 F.2d at 142.
Bryant argues that the supporting affidavit was
insufficient to establish probable cause. The affidavit
established that Bryant was living at the subject residence. It
detailed the affiant’s familiarity with Bryant’s history of arrests
for drug charges. The affidavit further detailed the affiant’s
surveillance of the subject residence and the information learned
therefrom. Additionally, the affidavit detailed a recent arrest of
Bryant by the affiant, wherein Bryant departed the subject
residence and, after a high speed pursuit, was discovered with
*
Though Bryant sought the suppression of evidence obtained
from “three separate arrests, searches, or seizures by the
Greensboro Police Department,” he appeals only that portion of the
district court’s ruling that pertains to the March 30, 2004 search.
- 3 -
contraband substances. Under the totality of the circumstances,
see Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, we conclude that the issuing court had
a substantial basis to conclude that the supporting affidavit
established probable cause. In addition, the district court
alternatively held that even if the affidavit did not establish
probable cause, the search was valid because the officers executing
the warrant acted in reasonable good faith reliance on the
magistrate’s determination of probable cause. United States v.
Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). We agree. The district court therefore
properly denied Bryant’s motion to suppress.
Bryant also contends that the sentence imposed by the
district court was unreasonable because there were mitigating
factors that warranted a lower sentence. After the Supreme Court’s
decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
546 (4th Cir. 2005). However, in determining a sentence
post-Booker, sentencing courts are still required to calculate and
consider the guideline range prescribed thereby as well as the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). Id. If the
sentence imposed is within the properly calculated guideline range,
it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d
449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006). Because the district court appropriately
treated the guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and
- 4 -
considered the guideline range, and weighed the relevant § 3553(a)
factors, we conclude that Bryant’s sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Bryant’s convictions and
sentences. 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
- 5 -