UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4975
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD EARL RICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:07-cr-01475-HMH-1)
Submitted: April 8, 2009 Decided: May 12, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins,
United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Earl Rice appeals his conviction and life
sentence for bank robbery by force or violence in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006). Rice contends the district court
erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a
result of a constitutionally deficient search warrant. We
affirm.
We review the district court’s factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the
district court’s legal determinations de novo. United States v.
Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 280 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Ornelas v.
United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996)). When a suppression
motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government. United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d
690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006).
In reviewing the propriety of issuing a search
warrant, the relevant inquiry is whether, under the totality of
the circumstances, the issuing judge had a substantial basis for
concluding that there was probable cause to issue the warrant.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). Although the
search warrant at issue failed to specify the exact address of
the premises to be searched, under the totality of the
circumstances we find there were sufficient corroborating facts
2
establishing probable cause supporting the issuance and
execution of the search warrant. See id. at 238.
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