UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4355
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWARD COPELAND, a/k/a Big Eddie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-00135-PMD)
Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Guy J. Vitetta, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Carlton R. Bourne, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Edward Copeland of conspiracy to
distribute powder cocaine and cocaine base (“crack”) and possession
with intent to distribute crack, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) (2000), and possession of ammunition by a
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), (e)(1)
(2000). The district court sentenced Copeland to life
imprisonment, and Copeland timely appealed. Copeland asserts on
appeal that the district court erroneously denied his motions to
suppress evidence and statements obtained following the service of
a subsequently invalidated arrest warrant. The district court
found the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule articulated
in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applied. We affirm.
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error and the court’s legal determinations 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). The evidence is viewed in the
light most favorable to the Government. See United States v.
Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).
If a warrant is found to be defective, the evidence
obtained from the defective warrant may nevertheless be admitted
under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. See Leon,
468 U.S. at 922-23. Evidence seized pursuant to a defective
warrant will not be suppressed unless: (1) the affidavit contains
- 2 -
knowing or reckless falsity; (2) the magistrate acts as a rubber
stamp for the police; (3) the affidavit does not provide the
magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence
of probable cause; or (4) the warrant is so facially deficient that
an officer could not reasonably rely on it. United States v.
Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 121-22 (4th Cir. 1996). With these standards
in mind, we find no error. We therefore affirm the district
court’s conclusion that the good faith exception was applicable.
Accordingly, we affirm Copeland’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
*
We deny Copeland’s pro se motion for copies of documents.
- 3 -