892 F.2d 75 (4th Cir. 1989), 88-5675, 88-5675 to 88-5677, U.S. v. Saleem
|Docket Nº:||88-5675 to 88-5677.|
|Citation:||892 F.2d 75|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammed SALEEM, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Habibur RAHMAN, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zahir SHAH, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||December 01, 1989|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued: Oct. 6, 1989.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-88-146-JH)
Margaret Brooke Murdock, Assistant Federal Public Defender; William B. Purpura (Fred Warren Bennett, Federal Public Defender; Christopher M. Davis, Davis & Davis, on brief), for appellants.
Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant United States Attorney (Breckinridge L. Willcox, United States Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and W. EARL BRITT, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Appellants Mohammed Saleem, Habibur Rahman, and Zahir Shah were charged with conspiracy to distribute, and possess with intent to distribute, one kilogram or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and with one count of importation of more than one kilogram of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952. Saleem and Rahman were also charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 941(a)(1). The appellants were found guilty by a jury of all charges.
On appeal, Saleem and Rahman argue that statements made by them after arrest were improperly admitted at trial because they were involuntarily given. Shah argues that all statements made by him during the stop of his car should have been suppressed at trial because they were the results of an illegal search and seizure. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the district court.
On 21 April 1988, appellants Saleem and Rahman were arrested at approximately 2:00 p.m. At approximately 6:30 p.m., Rahman was advised of his Miranda rights through a Pakistani interpreter. Rahman was given a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP