UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4665
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STERLYN AVERY HEWLETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00043-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2014 Decided: April 11, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sebastian M. Joy, JOY LAW OFFICE, Catlettsburg, Kentucky, for
Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Sharon
M. Frazier, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sterlyn Avery Hewlett pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2012), and was sentenced to thirty-three months’ imprisonment.
In the plea agreement, Hewlett reserved the right to challenge
the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence
seized from the vehicle he was driving. Hewlett contends on
appeal that the district court erred in denying the motion to
suppress on the ground that the search was valid under a
protective sweep incident to a stop. We affirm.
When considering a district court’s ruling on a motion
to suppress, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de
novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v.
Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). When a suppression
motion has been denied by the district court, we construe the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. Id. A
factual finding is clearly erroneous if “the reviewing 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, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The district court’s ultimate conclusion that
the protective search is constitutional is a legal conclusion
2
which we review de novo. United States v. Griffin, 589 F.3d
148, 151-52 (4th Cir. 2009).
With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the
transcript of the suppression hearing, the district court’s
order, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude Hewlett’s motion to
suppress was properly denied for the reasons stated by the
district court. See United States v. Hewlett, No. 3:13-cr-
00043-1 (S.D. W.Va. May 3, 2013).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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