United States v. Goins, 042219 FED4, 18-4229
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL RAY GOINS, a/k/a pthcisgreat, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jared P. Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE...|
|Judge Panel:||Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||April 22, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Submitted: April 18, 2019
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Senior District Judge. (5:17-cr-00018-RLV-DSC-1)
Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jared P. Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Michael Ray Goins entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of child pornography involving a minor under 12 years of age, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) (2012), preserving his right to challenge on appeal the district court's order denying his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced Goins to the 120-month statutory mandatory minimum sentence applicable to his conviction. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues for review, but nonetheless discussing the correctness of the district court's suppression ruling. Goins was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so, and the Government has declined to file a response brief. We affirm.
"When a district court has denied a motion to suppress, we review the court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error[, ] view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government . . . ." United States v. Hill, 852 F.3d 377, 381 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Goins sought to suppress evidence the Government seized pursuant to a search warrant that...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP