US v. Jennifer Murphy, No. 07-4634 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4634 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JENNIFER MURPHY, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge; Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07cr-00012-REP) Submitted: March 18, 2009 Decided: April 9, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald M. Barley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Norman Scott Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jennifer Murphy appeals her convictions by a jury of possession of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (2006), possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (2006), and maintaining a place for the purpose of distributing controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 (2006); imprisonment. and her sentence of forty-one months of On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court properly denied Murphy s motion to suppress evidence. * Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court. On appeal from a district court s denial of a motion to suppress, the district court s factual findings are reviewed for clear error and the legal determinations are reviewed de novo. 2007). See United States v. Buckner, 473 F.3d 551, 553 (4th Cir. Under a clear error standard of review, this court will reverse only if left with the definite and firm conviction that United States v. Stevenson, 396 a mistake has been committed. F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005)(quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, * Murphy was informed of her right supplemental brief but has not done so. 2 to file a pro se 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). It is well-settled that this court will give particular deference to a district court s credibility determinations 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) (quoting United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1169 (4th Cir. 1995)). Finally, where, as here, the district court denies a motion to suppress, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006). The district court, after hearing the evidence at the suppression hearing and a subsequent hearing, determined that Murphy consented to the search. the contrary, determination this Court founded on Absent compelling evidence to declines witness to overturn demeanor and a factual credibility. United States v. Locklear, 829 F.2d 1314, 1317 (4th Cir. 1987) 975 (9th Cir. The record does not reveal compelling evidence contrary district Wolf, 970, 1987)). the v. F.2d United to States 813 (citing court s credibility determination, and therefore, Murphy s claim fails. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We remand to the district court for correction of the first page of 3 the written judgment to reflect that the offense in Count Two, possession of cocaine, is a misdemeanor offense. This writing, of court the requires right to that petition United States for further review. be filed, but counsel counsel the inform Supreme Murphy, Court of in the If Murphy requests a petition believes 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 Murphy. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED 4
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.
