UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4444
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PAUL JOHNSON, a/k/a Michael Johnson, a/k/a
Shariff Omar Carmichael,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00147-WLO)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: March 13, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L.
Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Paul Johnson was convicted of
bank robbery, robbery of a credit union with a dangerous weapon,
use and carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence, and
possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person previously
convicted of a felony. On appeal, he contends that the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered
during the stop of him and the search of his person and vehicle.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
This court reviews the factual findings underlying a
motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s legal
determinations de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S.
690, 699 (1996). 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).
With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the
transcript of the suppression hearing and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion
to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm Johnson’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
- 2 -