UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5179
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NAKIA LERONE GERMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:07-cr-01385-PMD-1)
Submitted: December 29, 2011 Decided: January 9, 2012
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Stanley Feldman, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Matthew J. Modica,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nakia Lerone German appeals his conviction after
conditional guilty pleas to possession of a firearm by a felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006); possessing a
stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j); and stealing
a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(l) (2006). German
claims on appeal that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress. We affirm.
The district court found that probable cause to search
German’s car existed because, after German’s arrest for domestic
violence, German’s common-law wife informed police that he was a
convicted felon and had a shotgun in the trunk. We have
reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error
and its legal determinations de novo, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the government. United States v.
Buckner, 473 F.3d 551, 553 (4th Cir. 2007); United States v.
Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005). We conclude that
probable cause existed because the statement was supported by
sufficient indicia of reliability. * The informant’s close
*
German contends on appeal that the district court erred
because the Government did not advance this argument, relying
instead on the theory that the search was a valid inventory
search. We need not address this contention because this Court
may “affirm on any ground supported by the record.” United
States v. Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602, 611-12 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 131 S. Ct. 182 (2010).
2
relationship with German and her recent occupancy of the car
established a basis for direct knowledge. United States v.
Perez, 393 F.3d 457, 462 (4th Cir. 2004). Additionally, the
circumstances under which the statement was given provided an
opportunity to asses her credibility and, unlike an anonymous
tip, rendered her accountable for any falsehood. United States
v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 523 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we
affirm German’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3