US v. Russell East, No. 08-4866 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4866 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RUSSELL A. EAST, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00060-gec-jgw-1) Submitted: March 26, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Andrea Harris, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Ryan L. Souders, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Russell A. East was convicted and sentenced to forty-six months in prison after entering a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). East s guilty plea was conditioned on his right to appeal the district court s order denying his motion to suppress search of his the home. firearm On seized appeal, East by police during the only the challenges district court s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the district court s judgment. This court reviews the district court s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court s legal determinations de novo. See United States v. Gray, 491 F.3d 138, 143-44 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1226 (2008). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. See States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006). United 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 East s motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.