US v. Philip Carillo-Riva, No. 10-4662 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4662 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. PHILIP CARILLO-RIVAS, a/k/a Manuel Cubias-Rivas, 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. (5:09-cr-00152-FL-1) Submitted: June 13, 2011 Decided: July 11, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Andrea T. Stubbs, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, James E. Todd, Jr., Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Brian S. Meyers, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Philip Carillo-Rivas was convicted by a federal jury of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006); possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006); possession of a firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006); possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2006); and illegally reentering the country after having previously been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006). a total of 150 The district court sentenced Carillo-Rivas to months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. Carillo-Rivas argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of his warrantless arrest and the search of his residence pursuant to a search warrant. Carillo-Rivas first contends that there was no probable cause to support his warrantless arrest. In reviewing a district court s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the court s factual findings for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). When the district court denies a defendant s suppression motion, we construe the 2 evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). [A] warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed. Devenpeck v. omitted). Alford, Probable 543 cause U.S. 146, exists 152 when (2004) there (citations are facts and circumstances within the officer s knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense. Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37 (1979); see Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 152 ( Whether probable cause exists depends upon the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest. ) (citation omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in finding that probable cause existed to support the warrantless arrest of Carillo-Rivas. Carillo-Rivas next argues that the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant cause for issuance of the warrant. failed to provide probable [I]n order to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant based in 3 part on an informant s hearsay, it is necessary to consider all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit . . . , including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information. Cir. 2004) (noting United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 309 (4th (internal degree of also important). quotation marks corroboration of and citation informant s omitted) statements is Moreover, the determination of probable cause by the issuing magistrate is entitled to great deference from this court. Id. (citation omitted). Thus, this court s role is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. quotation marks and citation omitted). Id. (internal Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in determining that there was sufficient probable cause to support issuance of the search warrant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 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.
