UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4038
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE LEO HAWKINS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-04-60)
Submitted: March 29, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Edgar Demps, J. EDGAR DEMPS, P.L.L.C., Portsmouth, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J.
Elston, William D. Muhr, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., appeals his conviction for
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii) (2000), and felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000).* He asserts that the district court erred in denying in
part his motion to suppress evidence. 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 partially
denying the suppression motion. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
The record provides sufficient support for the district
court’s conclusion that Hawkins voluntarily consented to the search
of his hotel room and vehicle. 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 States v. Lattimore, 87
F.3d 647, 650 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (noting that “conditions
under which the consent to search was given” are relevant). We
reject Hawkins’ argument that his encounter with law enforcement
officials amounted to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. See
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996) (stating
*
Hawkins apparently waived his right to challenge his sentence
on appeal. J.A. 120.
- 2 -
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). Finally, as to the storage facility, the court granted the
motion to suppress the firearm found during the search. Hawkins
points to no other incriminating evidence that was found during the
search of the storage facility. We thus conclude that the district
court did not err in finding that Hawkins voluntarily consented to
the search of his hotel room and automobile, and in denying in part
his motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm Hawkins’ conviction. We deny
Hawkins’ motion for substitute counsel, and his request to file a
pro se supplemental 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 -