US v. Paul Johnson, No. 07-4444 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4444 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL JOHNSON, a/k/a Michael Johnson, a/k/a Shariff Omar Carmichael, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00147-WLO) Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: March 13, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Following a jury trial, Paul Johnson was convicted of bank robbery, robbery of a credit union with a dangerous weapon, use and carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person previously convicted of a felony. On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during the stop of him and the search of his person and vehicle. 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 Johnson s convictions. 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.
