UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4038
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIERRENCE MARCELLE SMALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00144-WO-1)
Submitted: November 7, 2012 Decided: November 16, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael A.
DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tierrence Marcelle Small 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) and
924(a)(2) (2006). In the plea agreement, Small reserved his
right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop. On appeal,
Small argues that he was unreasonably seized in violation of the
Fourth Amendment and that any evidence resulting from such
seizure should have been suppressed. We affirm.
We review factual findings underlying the district
court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d
243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). When a suppression motion has been
denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d
210, 217 (4th Cir. 2008). This court grants great deference to
factual findings based on credibility determinations. See
United States v. Moses, 540 F.3d 263, 268-69 (4th Cir. 2008).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court did not err in resolving the conflicting testimony and
denying the suppression motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3