US v. Adams, No. 07-4993 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 25, 2012.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4993 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEONTRAYVIA ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant.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. (5:07-cr-00006-FL) Argued: October 28, 2009 Decided: May 14, 2010 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and Jane R. ROTH, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. Vacated and remanded by unpublished opinion. wrote the opinion, in which Judge Michael Hamilton joined. Senior Judge Roth and Senior Judge ARGUED: Paul K. Sun, Jr., ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jason Harris Cowley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 ROTH, Senior Circuit Judge: Deontrayvia Adams appeals his convictions for marijuana possession and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Adams discretion contends when, that after the the district court s court deadline abused for its pre-trial motions had passed, it denied his right to file a motion to suppress. failure He to assistance also timely of argues file counsel, that the that his motion the original trial constituted District Court counsel s ineffective violated his Confrontation Clause rights by limiting cross-examination of key witnesses, and that the District Court improperly classified him as an Armed Career Criminal. We agree with him on the issue of the motion to suppress, but we find the other three contentions to be without merit. Adams filed his untimely suppression motion well before the scheduled trial date; an evidentiary hearing to consider the motion would not have prejudiced the government. States v. Chavez, 902 F.2d 259 (4th Cir. 1990). will order a limited remand to the district evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. See United Accordingly, we court for an If the district court grants the motion, it will enter its order suppressing the 3 evidence in question, vacate the conviction, and award a new trial. be set If the court denies the motion, the conviction will not aside jurisdiction. by the district court and we will resume See United States v. Campbell, 945 F.2d 713, 716 (4th Cir. 1991). For the reasons stated above, we VACATE the conviction and grant a LIMITED REMAND of this case for a hearing on the motion to suppress, with further action consistent with this opinion. VACATED 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.
