US v. Nathaniel Bailey, No. 09-4210 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4210 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHANIEL DEVON BAILEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00196-RJC-CH-1) Submitted: August 28, 2009 Decided: December 8, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ross H. Richardson, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Devon Bailey appeals the judgment revoking his supervised release. district court s Bailey s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), appeal asserting but that there questioning are whether no the meritorious district issues court for erred in relying upon evidence seized on November 24, 2008, allegedly in violation of the committed new Fourth criminal Amendment, conduct. to conclude Bailey was that informed Bailey of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We defendant s review a district supervised court s release decision for abuse an to of revoke a discretion, United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999), and review for clear error factual determinations conclusion that a violation occurred. 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009). find a violation of a condition preponderance of the evidence. underlying the United States v. Miller, A district court need only of supervised release by a 18 U.S.C.A. ยง 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009); Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000). Bailey s claim that evidence seized after the November 24 stop should have been excluded fails because the exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised 2 release revocation proceedings. See United 393-95 (4th Cir. 1999). court did not abuse States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, We therefore find that the district its discretion in concluding by a preponderance of the evidence that Bailey committed new criminal conduct. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, believes but counsel that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 3
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.
