US v. Robert Gray, No. 09-4664 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4664 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ROBERT LEON GRAY, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (7:07-cr-00122-FL-1) Submitted: July 20, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 20, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel J. Randall, IV, RANDALL WORTMAN, P.C., Leland, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy Severo, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Leon Gray entered a conditional guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute more than five grams or more of cocaine base and an unspecified quantity of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006). The district imprisonment. court sentenced Gray to 210 months In the plea agreement, Gray reserved the right to challenge the district court s denial of his motion to suppress drugs discovered in a rental car. Gray contends on appeal that the district court erred in accepting the magistrate judge s recommendation to deny his motion to suppress. We review the district We affirm. court s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and the court s legal determinations de novo. 679, 682 (4th Cir. 2010). United States v. Day, 591 F.3d When a district court denies a suppression motion, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. F.3d 230, district 234 (4th court s Cir. United States v. Matthews, 591 2009). opportunity to We give judge due the regard to the credibility of witnesses for it is the role of the district court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pre-trial motion to suppress. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008). 2 With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing, the magistrate judge s recommendation, briefs, we the conclude district that the court s order, district denying Gray s motion to suppress. court No. dispense 7:07-cr-00122-FL-1 with oral argument the did parties not err in Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * Gray, and (E.D.N.C. because See United States v. May the 5, 2008). facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * We note Gray s argument on appeal that the district court s conclusion that the search of the rented vehicle was permissible as a search incident to arrest is no longer supportable under the Supreme Court s decision in Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). However, because the district court properly concluded Gray had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle searched and therefore no standing to contest the search of the vehicle, it is unnecessary for us to consider the propriety of this secondary holding. 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.