US v. Christopher Matthew, No. 10-4339 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4339 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER MATTHEWS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00023-gec-1) Submitted: January 10, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Downes, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. DOWNES, Front Royal, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Jeb T. Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Matthews appeals from his conviction for conspiracy to distribute possession with intent more 100 distribute more to than grams than of 100 heroin, grams of heroin, and possession with intent to distribute hydromorphone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). Matthews filed a motion to suppress evidence found as a result of a search of the vehicle that he owned and in which he was a passenger at the time of the stop, and the district court denied the motion. On appeal, Matthews argues that the district court erred in finding that the Virginia code section that the vehicle was stopped for violating did not apply because his vehicle was licensed in South Carolina. We review the Finding no error, we affirm. district court s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and the court s legal determinations de novo. 679, 682 (4th Cir. 2010). United States v. Day, 591 F.3d When a district court denies a suppression motion, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Matthews, 591 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 412 (2010). This court gives due regard to the district court s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses for it is the role of the district court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pre-trial 2 motion to suppress. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the hearing on Matthews motion and we conclude that, taken in the light most favorable to the Government, see Matthews, 591 F.3d at 234, the evidence adduced at the hearing amply supports the district court s ruling. Va. Code Ann. The court did not err in holding that § 46.2-716(B) (2010) applies to out-of-state license plates, and even if it does not, the statute is unclear and would still provide an objectively reasonable basis for the officer to stop the vehicle. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Matthews motion to suppress and affirm the conviction. 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 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.
