UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4791
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRADY WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00157-1)
Submitted: March 28, 2014 Decided: April 9, 2014
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Tinney, Jr., TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States
Attorney, Miller Bushong, Assistant United States Attorney,
Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brady Woods appeals from his convictions after a jury
found him guilty of distribution of cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012); possession with intent to
distribute more than 280 grams of cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession with intent to distribute a
quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). Woods filed a
motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his
residence. The district court denied the motion. On appeal,
Woods challenges only the district court's denial of his motion
to suppress. We affirm.
Woods argues that the district court erred in finding
that it was reasonable for officers to conduct a protective
sweep of his residence. Woods argues that, when the officers
conducted the protective sweep, he was handcuffed and secured in
a police vehicle. He contends that the sweep was conducted
after any objective threat to the officers’ safety had been
removed, and the sweep was in fact a post hoc rationalization to
validate the seizures after execution of the search warrant.
We review the district court's factual findings
regarding the motion to suppress for clear error, and the
court's legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Burgess,
2
684 F.3d 445, 452 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 490
(2012); United States v. Edwards, 666 F.3d 877, 882 (4th Cir.
2011). When, as here, a motion to suppress has been denied, we
view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the
government. United States v. McBride, 676 F.3d 385, 391 (4th
Cir. 2012).
We have reviewed the joint appendix, including the
district court’s order denying the motion to suppress, and the
parties’ briefs. Finding no error in the district court’s
determination of the reasonableness of conducting a protective
sweep, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court on that
basis. United States v. Woods, No. 1:12-cr-00157-1 (S.D. W. Va.
Apr. 8, 2013). 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