UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4140
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THELONIOUS HINTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00256-001)
Submitted: August 24, 2007 Decided: September 20, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Charles D. Lewis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Research and
Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck
Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Matthew C. Ackley, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thelonious Hinton entered a conditional guilty plea to
one count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or
more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)
(2000); one count of possession of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 844 (2000); and one count of possession of a firearm after
having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year
of imprisonment and having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), (9) (2000).
On appeal, Hinton asserts that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of his
bedroom. He argues that the officers’ entry into the backyard of
the house without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights,
and that the taint of that violation had not dissipated when his
mother consented to a search of his bedroom.
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, this court reviews the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. See United
States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). Whether
consent to a search is voluntary is a factual question determined
under the totality of the circumstances and reviewed under the
- 2 -
clearly erroneous standard. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S.
218, 248-49 (1973); United States v. Jones, 356 F.3d 529, 533 n.*
(4th Cir. 2004). The Government has the burden of proving that
consent was freely and voluntarily given. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at
222. This court gives due regard to the district court’s
opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses and does not
review credibility determinations. See United States v. Lowe, 65
F.3d 1137, 1142 (4th Cir. 1995). Our review of the record,
including the transcript of the suppression hearing, leads us to
conclude that the district court did not err in denying Hinton’s
motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm Hinton’s convictions 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 -