UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4913
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ANTHONY ROBINSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00423-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 19, 2012 Decided: April 4, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Robinson, Jr., conditionally pleaded
guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). He
now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress and his designation as an armed career criminal. We
affirm.
Robinson claims that the affidavit supporting the
search warrant application was so “bare bones” that neither
probable cause nor a good-faith exception existed to justify the
search. We review the validity of a search warrant under the
totality of the circumstances to determine whether the issuing
judge had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to
issue the warrant. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39
(1983); United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir.
2005). In doing so, we afford great deference to the factual
assessments of the issuing judge. United States v. Allen, 631
F.3d 164, 173 (4th Cir. 2011). When a warrant is based in part
on hearsay, the relevant inquiries are the veracity and basis of
knowledge of the person supplying the information. United
States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 309 (4th Cir. 2004). “The degree
to which an informant’s story is corroborated may also be an
important factor.” Id.
2
We find no error in the probable cause determination
here. The warrant application cited the prior reliability of
the confidential informant and the informant’s firsthand
knowledge of drug distribution from the target property. The
informant met with law enforcement officers on multiple
occasions, provided information that was confirmed by law
enforcement officers, and carried out a drug purchase with law
enforcement funds. The affidavit set forth sufficient
information to support the finding of probable cause.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Robinson’s
motion to suppress.
Robinson next challenges his sentence, claiming that
the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) is unconstitutional and
that he was improperly sentenced as an armed career criminal.
Robinson’s constitutional argument is foreclosed by binding
precedent. See United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 68 (4th
Cir. 1995). His arguments that his North Carolina conspiracy to
assault inflicting serious injury and common law robbery
convictions are not predicate “violent felonies” under the ACCA
are similarly unavailing. An offense need not contain an “overt
act” element to constitute an ACCA predicate. See, e.g., United
States v. White, 571 F.3d 365, 370-71 (4th Cir. 2009). Thus,
Robinson’s argument regarding his conspiracy conviction fails.
Likewise, North Carolina common law robbery involves conduct
3
that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to
another and therefore is properly considered an ACCA predicate.
We find no error in Robinson’s designation as an armed career
criminal.
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4