UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4536
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NICHOLAS ARMAND CLAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00304-WO-1)
Submitted: December 27, 2012 Decided: January 15, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Armand Clay 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(e) (2006). In the plea agreement, Clay reserved his right
to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress
evidence seized and statements made subsequent to his arrest.
On appeal, Clay argues that there was no probable cause to
justify his arrest and that any evidence resulting from such
arrest 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. 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 finding that there was sufficient probable
cause to justify Clay’s arrest and denying the suppression
motion.
2
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