UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4432
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAWN LERAY BALDWIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00168-FWB)
Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 4, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Scott Coalter, MCKINNEY & JUSTICE, P.A., Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Augustus DeFranco, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Leray Baldwin pled guilty to possession of a
firearm in commerce after a felony conviction, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2000), and was sentenced to
eighty-four months in prison. Counsel for Baldwin has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
alleging he has found no meritorious issues for appeal, but stating
as a possible ground for appeal the district court’s denial of
Baldwin’s motion to suppress.* Baldwin was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The
Government declined to file a responding brief. Finding no error,
we affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Moreover, we find the Government produced ample evidence
to establish police had probable cause to search Baldwin after
hearing a gunshot and seeing Baldwin frantically try to shove
something into his pants pocket. Accordingly, we find the district
court correctly denied Baldwin’s motion to suppress.
Finding no meritorious issues for appeal, we affirm
Baldwin's conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform Baldwin in writing of his right to petition the
*
Baldwin reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion
to suppress.
- 2 -
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Baldwin
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Baldwin. 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 -