US v. Branden White, No. 10-4278 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4278 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRANDEN ALTOMORRE WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00021-nkm-1) Submitted: November 15, 2010 Decided: December 10, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Ronald M. Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Joseph D. Platania, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Branden Altomorre White pled guilty to possession of a firearm by violation an of 18 unlawful U.S.C. user of a controlled § 922(g)(3) (2006). He substance, in reserved the right to appeal the district court s order denying his motion to suppress. We affirm. In reviewing the district court s ruling on a motion to suppress, this court reviews the district court s factual findings for clear error, and its legal determinations de novo. United States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481 (4th Cir. 2008). The facts the are reviewed in the light most favorable to prevailing party below. United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 628 (4th Cir. 2007). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in denying White s motion to suppress. Accordingly, dispense with oral we affirm argument White s because the conviction. facts and We 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.