UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4958
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EMMANUEL MAURICE CLIFTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00110-RJC)
Submitted: May 2, 2008 Decided: June 18, 2008
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ross Richardson, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Maurice Clifton pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000), and was sentenced to ten months in prison. Police detained
and ultimately arrested Clifton after hearing gunshots coming from
the front of a residence located in a high-crime neighborhood and
from which Clifton later emerged. Clifton’s guilty plea was
conditioned on his right to appeal the district court’s denial of
his motion to suppress his statement admitting to police that he
fired one of the weapons heard by police, as well as the guns
recovered by police after receiving his cousin’s consent to search
the residence. On appeal, Clifton challenges only the district
court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the district
court’s judgment.
This court reviews the district court's factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district
court's legal determinations de novo. See United States v. Gray,
491 F.3d 138, 143-44 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted),
cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1226 (2008). When a suppression motion
has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Government. See United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704
(4th Cir. 2006). With these standards in mind, and having reviewed
the transcript of the suppression hearing and the parties’ briefs,
- 2 -
we conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Clifton’s motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 -