UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4640
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE DUMAS, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-04-58)
Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: July 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc L. Resnick, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Willie Dumas, III, appeals his conviction and 262-month
sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty
grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). Dumas pleaded guilty but reserved the
right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence and statements. We affirm.
The factual findings underlying a motion to suppress are
reviewed for clear error, while the legal determinations are
reviewed de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 691
(1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992).
When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence
in the light most favorable to the government. See United
States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).
To assert a Fourth Amendment challenge to the
Government’s use of evidence obtained during the search of the
plastic shopping bag, Dumas must establish that he had “a
legitimate expectation of privacy” in the bag. See Rakas v.
Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148-49 (1978). “A subjective expectation
of privacy is legitimate if it is one that society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable.” Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 95-96
(1990). The defendant has the burden of showing that he has a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. See
Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104 (1980). Our review of the
- 2 -
record leads us to conclude that the district court correctly
denied Dumas’ motion to suppress evidence and statements.
We grant Dumas’ motion to file a pro se supplemental
brief. We have considered the arguments presented in that brief
and find them to be without merit. We therefore affirm Dumas’
conviction and sentence. 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 -