UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4430
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BERNARD EVERETT REESE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00337-TDS-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Everett Reese pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
conditional plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a
firearm. Counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967) brief, stating that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but that Reese wished to challenge the denial of his
motion to suppress a shotgun found during a search of his
apartment. Reese filed a pro se supplemental brief reiterating
the arguments by counsel. The Government declined to file a
brief. We affirm.
In considering the denial of a suppression motion, we
review the district court’s legal determinations de novo and its
factual findings for clear error. United States v. Kelly, 592
F.3d 586, 589 (4th Cir. 2010). The court “view[s] the facts in
the light most favorable to the Government, as the party
prevailing below.” United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534
(4th Cir. 2013). The court also “defer[s] to the district
court’s credibility findings, as it is the role of the [trial]
court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a
pre-trial motion to suppress.” United States v. Griffin, 589
F.3d 148, 150-51 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We have reviewed the transcript of the motion to
suppress hearing and the district court’s detailed ruling on the
2
motion and find no clear error in the district court’s finding
of facts or error in its legal conclusions. We defer to its
credibility findings. Accordingly, there is no reason to
reverse the ruling.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Reese’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Reese, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Reese 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 Reese. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3