UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4662
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PHILIP CARILLO-RIVAS, a/k/a Manuel Cubias-Rivas,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00152-FL-1)
Submitted: June 13, 2011 Decided: July 11, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Andrea T. Stubbs, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, James E.
Todd, Jr., Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Brian S. Meyers, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Philip Carillo-Rivas was convicted by a federal jury
of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006); possession of a firearm in relation
to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2006); possession of a firearm after having previously been
convicted of a crime punishable by a term exceeding one year of
imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006);
possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2006); and illegally reentering the country
after having previously been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a) (2006). The district court sentenced Carillo-Rivas to
a total of 150 months of imprisonment and he now appeals.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Carillo-Rivas argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of
his warrantless arrest and the search of his residence pursuant
to a search warrant. Carillo-Rivas first contends that there
was no probable cause to support his warrantless arrest. “In
reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we
review the court’s factual findings for clear error, and its
legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Cain, 524 F.3d
477, 481 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). When the district
court denies a defendant’s suppression motion, we construe “the
2
evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” United
States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation
omitted).
“[A] warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to
believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.”
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004) (citations
omitted). Probable cause exists when there are “facts and
circumstances within the officer’s knowledge that are sufficient
to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in
believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has
committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.”
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37 (1979); see Devenpeck,
543 U.S. at 152 (“Whether probable cause exists depends upon the
reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the
arresting officer at the time of the arrest.”) (citation
omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the district court did not err in finding that probable
cause existed to support the warrantless arrest of
Carillo-Rivas.
Carillo-Rivas next argues that the affidavit submitted
in support of the search warrant failed to provide probable
cause for issuance of the warrant. “[I]n order to establish
probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant based in
3
part on an informant’s hearsay, it is necessary to consider all
the circumstances set forth in the affidavit . . . , including
the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay
information.” United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 309 (4th
Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
(noting degree of corroboration of informant’s statements is
also important). Moreover, “the determination of probable cause
by the issuing magistrate is entitled to great deference from
this court.” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, this court’s role
“is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis
for concluding that probable cause existed.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Our review of the record
leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in
determining that there was sufficient probable cause to support
issuance of the search warrant.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
4