UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4334
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM C. MURPHY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:05-cr-00034-F)
Submitted: January 23, 2008 Decided: March 4, 2008
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sue Genrich Berry, BOWEN, BERRY AND POWERS, PLLC, Wilmington, North
Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States
Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Wes J. Camden, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, William C. Murphy, Jr., was
convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of
18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2007). The district court
sentenced Murphy to ten months in prison on the drug trafficking
count and a consecutive sixty months in prison on the firearms
count. Murphy timely appeals, challenging the district court’s
denial of his two suppression motions.
Murphy first argues that the initial traffic stop
violated his Fourth Amendment rights. We find that, based on the
information available to the officers at the time of the stop,
namely that Murphy was driving with an expired North Carolina
driver’s license, the traffic stop was proper. Whren v. United
States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996) (“As a general matter, the
decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have
probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.”).
Murphy also contends that the search warrant was
constitutionally deficient because the affidavit supporting the
warrant listed one officer, but another officer signed it. We find
that this technical error did not amount to a constitutional
violation and did not invalidate the search warrant. See United
States v. Hyten, 5 F.3d 1154, 1156-57 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that
affidavit listing incorrect name of affiant did not require
suppression).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Murphy’s convictions. 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 -