United States v. Philip Carillo-Rivas

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4662

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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