US v. Guy Escue, III, No. 11-4669 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Affirmed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4669 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. GUY W. ESCUE, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:10-cr-00159-1) Submitted: December 7, 2011 Decided: December 9, 2011 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Steven I. Loew, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Guy W. Escue, III, pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in 924(a)(2) (2006), and imprisonment. to challenge violation was of 18 sentenced U.S.C. to ยงยง 922(g)(1), eighty-four months In the plea agreement, Escue reserved the right the district court s denial of suppress evidence seized from his bedroom. his motion to Escue contends on appeal that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress because voluntarily given. his consent to search the bedroom was not We affirm. In reviewing the district court s denial of Escue s suppression motion, we review the court s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). United States v. Because the district court denied Escue s motion, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. We also defer to the Id. district court s credibility determinations. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008). The Fourth Amendment guarantees [t]he right of the people to seizures. searches be secure . . . against U.S. Const. amend. IV. be conducted pursuant independent judicial officer. unreasonable searches and This guarantee requires that to a warrant issued by an California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 2 386, 390 (1985). established rule. and There are, however, well-delineated a exceptions few to specifically this general California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and the parties briefs, we conclude Escue s that motion the to district suppress. court The did not record err amply in denying supports the district court s finding that Escue consented to the search of his bedroom. that Further, we conclude after review of the record Escue voluntarily consented See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, (recognizing consent that 412 is an to U.S. 218, exception the 219, to search. 227 the (1973) warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of 87 F.3d 647, the circumstances); 650 (4th Cir. United 1996) (en States banc) v. Lattimore, (listing factors appropriate for consideration in reviewing whether consent was voluntarily given). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s 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.
