UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5170
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICHARD EDWARD CABEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00413-TDS-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Leonard, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN LEONARD, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Edward Cabey appeals from his conviction for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e) (2006). Cabey pleaded guilty but
reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle after an
investigatory stop. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews factual findings underlying the
district court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error
and legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Blake, 571 F.3d
331, 338 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1104 (2010).
A factual finding is clearly erroneous if this court “on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Harvey,
532 F.3d 326, 337 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
omitted). However, “if the district court’s account of the
evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its
entirety,” the court will not reverse the district court’s
finding even if it would have “decided the fact differently.”
United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). In other
words, when two views of the evidence are permissible, “the
district court’s choice between them cannot be clearly
2
erroneous.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted).
We have reviewed the transcript of the hearing on the
motion to suppress, the district court’s memorandum opinion and
order denying the motion, and the parties’ briefs and joint
appendix. Having reviewed these materials, we conclude that the
district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
We therefore affirm the 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