UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5111
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYRONE POWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00373-BEL-1)
Submitted: September 10, 2010 Decided: November 1, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven H. Levin, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Thiruvendran Vignarajah,
Kwame J. Manley, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Powell appeals from his conviction for
possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(C) (2006). Powell
filed a motion to suppress evidence found during the search of
his vehicle after an investigatory stop, and the district court
denied the motion. On appeal, Powell argues the district court
erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence. This
court reviews the district court’s factual findings underlying a
motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de
novo. United States v. Day, 591 F.3d 679, 682 (4th Cir. 2010).
We afford the district court’s credibility determinations due
deference, because “it is the role of the district court to
observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pre-trial
motion to suppress.” United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210,
232 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009).
We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the
hearing on Powell’s motion and we conclude that, taken in the
light most favorable to the Government, see United States v.
Matthews, 591 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert.
filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Apr. 23, 2010) (No. 09-10414), the
evidence adduced at the hearing amply supports the district
2
court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Powell’s
motion to suppress and affirm the conviction.
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