UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WADE GAYLE,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00408-WDQ-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Catherine Flynn, MEAD, FLYNN & GRAY, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wade Gayle was convicted by a jury of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006). He was sentenced at the bottom of his
Guidelines range to 210 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Gayle’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 (1967), stating that in her opinion
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court erred in denying Gayle’s motion to
suppress. Although advised of his right to do so, Gayle has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government declined to
file a response. We affirm.
We review the district court’s factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and the court’s
legal determinations de novo. United States v. Day, 591 F.3d
679, 682 (4th Cir. 2010). When a district court denies a
suppression motion, we review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government. United States v. Matthews, 591
F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 412
(2010). We give due regard to the district court’s opportunity
to judge the credibility of witnesses “for 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
2
and citation omitted). Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that the district court did not err in denying Gayle’s
motion to suppress on the grounds that the vehicle stop in
question was valid, Gayle’s warrantless arrest was supported by
probable cause, and Gayle’s ensuing statement to authorities was
not in response to interrogation and, therefore, admissible.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Gayle’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Gayle, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Gayle requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Gayle. 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