United Statess v. Traylor, 101310 FED2, 09-4082-cr
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. MARVIN TRAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: ANNE M. BURGER, Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office for the Western District of New York, Rochester, New York. APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL L. MCCABE, Assistant United States Attorney, for William J. Hochul, Jr., United States Attorney for the ...|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, BARRINGTON D. PARKER REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 13, 2010|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of October, two thousand ten.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (David G. Larimer, Judge; Marian W. Payson, Magistrate Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the September 24, 2009 judgment of the district court, is AFFIRMED.
Defendant Marvin Traylor pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress cash and a set of keys seized from his person in the course of an arrest that Traylor contends was unsupported by probable cause. On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review factual findings for clear error, viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the government, and we analyze de novo the ultimate determination of such legal issues as probable cause. See United States v. Walker, 534 F.3d 168, 171 (2d Cir. 2008). In doing so, we assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
Probable cause to arrest exists...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP