US v. Dwayne Mitchell, No. 08-4804 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4804 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DWAYNE MCARTHUR MITCHELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge (2:07-cr-01118-DCN-2) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwayne McArthur Mitchell pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea ammunition agreement, by a to convicted possession felon, ยงยง 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006). in of a firearm violation of 18 and U.S.C. The conditional plea preserved Mitchell s right to appeal the district court s denial of his motion to suppress. imprisonment. accordance Mitchell Counsel with for Anders v. was sentenced Mitchell has 386 California, to filed 110 a U.S. months brief 738 in (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether motion to suppress. the district court erred in denying the Mitchell was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief but has not done so. The Government has no declined to file a reply brief. Finding reversible error, we affirm. This court reviews the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the legal determinations de novo. United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 280 (4th Cir. 2007). When evaluating the denial of a suppression motion, we review the Government. evidence in the light most favorable to the United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006). With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing, we conclude the district 2 court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Mitchell, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Mitchell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 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 Mitchell. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
