UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4074
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ANTONIO STAPLES, a/k/a Christopher Antonio
Ross,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00260-TDS-1)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, JOHNSON & LAWSON, LLP, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Antonio Staples pled guilty to possession
of a firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). On appeal, Staples contends that
the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He
also argues that sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2006), violated his constitutional
rights under the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection
Clause, and the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.
When considering a district court’s ruling on a motion
to suppress evidence, this Court reviews the district court’s
factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de
novo. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.
1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, this Court
construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th
Cir. 1998). “Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent
occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching
distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search
or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of
the offense of arrest.” Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, __, 129
S. Ct. 1710, 1723 (2009).
While driving his girlfriend’s car, Staples was
stopped because the license plate had expired. The officer
2
learned that Staples’s driver’s license was revoked, and told
Staples that he could not drive away. The officer then asked if
he could search the car. Staples replied that the car was his
girlfriend’s, and the officer should wait until she arrived.
When the officer approached the passenger window, he noticed the
passenger attempting to conceal what appeared to be marijuana.
The passenger was arrested for possession of marijuana, and the
subsequent search revealed a handgun in the glove compartment.
We conclude that the district correctly found that the search
was a valid search incident to arrest because the officer
reasonably believed the vehicle contained evidence relating to
the passenger’s possession of marijuana.
Circuit precedent forecloses Staples’s constitutional
arguments challenging his sentence under the ACCA. United
States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 67-68 (4th Cir. 1995). We
therefore reject Staples’s claim. See Scotts Co. v. United
Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 272 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that
a panel of this court cannot explicitly or implicitly overrule
circuit precedent established by a prior panel; only the United
States Supreme Court or the en banc court may do so).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4