US v. Robinson, No. 05-4949 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4949 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus URAIN ALEXANDER ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CR-04-342) Submitted: September 29, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Lee Ponds, THE PONDS LAW FIRM, Washington, D.C.; Harry Tun, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Olivia N. Hawkins, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Urain Alexander Robinson was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2000), and sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Robinson asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. This court reviews the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court s legal determinations de novo. 690, 699 (1996). See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. When a suppression motion has been denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and the parties briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.