United States v. Leroy Scott, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4890

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEROY SCOTT, JR., a/k/a Roy Scott,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:13-cr-00020-MSD-LRL-1)

Submitted: June 30, 2014 Decided: July 8, 2014

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Yurachek, MARK ALLEN YURACHEK & ASSOCIATES, Falls
Church, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorney,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Leroy Scott, Jr., appeals from his convictions for

conspiracy to tamper with a witness/informant in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1512(k) (2012) (Count 1); conspiracy to retaliate

against a witness/informant in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(f)

(2012) (Count 2); tampering with a witness/informant in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A), (3)(A) & 18 U.S.C. § 2

(2012) (Count 3); retaliating against a witness/informant in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A) & 18 U.S.C.

§ 2 (2012) (Count 4); and use of a firearm resulting in death in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), (j) (2012) & 18 U.S.C. § 2

(Count 5). He was sentenced to life imprisonment for Counts 1-4

and a consecutive life sentence for Count 5. On appeal, Scott

raises one issue: whether the district court erred by denying

his motion to suppress statements made to investigators. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Scott argues that his statements to investigators were

made in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

When considering a district court’s ruling on a motion to

suppress, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de

novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v.

McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.

Ct. 1572 (2014). If the district court’s determination “of the

evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its

2
entirety,” we will affirm those findings, even if we “would have

decided the fact[s] differently.” United States v. Stevenson,

396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Where the district court denies the suppression

motion, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to

the Government, United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th

Cir. 2013), and defer to the district court’s credibility

findings. United States v. Griffin, 589 F.3d 148, 150 n.1 (4th

Cir. 2009).

We find no reversible error in the district court’s

denial of Scott’s motion to suppress. As noted by the district

court, Scott knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights under

Miranda, and the record reveals that he provided no statements

or evidence to the police prior to signing his Miranda waiver.

Accordingly, we affirm Scott’s convictions. We also deny

Scott’s two motions to file a pro se supplemental brief. 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