US v. Richard Cabey, No. 10-5170 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5170 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RICHARD EDWARD CABEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00413-TDS-1) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Leonard, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN LEONARD, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Edward Cabey appeals from his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 922(g), 924(e) (2006). Cabey pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the district court s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle after an investigatory stop. This Finding no error, we affirm. court reviews factual findings underlying the district court s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error United States v. Blake, 571 F.3d and legal conclusions de novo. 331, 338 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1104 (2010). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if this court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. 532 F.3d 326, omitted). evidence 337 (4th However, is entirety, if plausible the Cir. court the 2008) in will United States v. Harvey, (internal district light of not quotation court s the reverse account record the marks of the viewed in its district court s finding even if it would have decided the fact differently. United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). words, when district two court s views of choice the evidence between 2 them are In other permissible, cannot be the clearly erroneous. Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). We have reviewed the transcript of the hearing on the motion to suppress, the district court s memorandum opinion and order denying appendix. the motion, and the parties briefs and joint Having reviewed these materials, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. We therefore affirm the judgment. 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.
