US v. Deon Dinkins, No. 12-4348 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4348 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEON DINKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:11-cr-02061-CMC-1) Submitted: September 26, 2012 Decided: October 22, 2012 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, William K. Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Deon Dinkins pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment. On appeal, Dinkins challenges the district court s denial of his motions to suppress evidence and his statements to police. We affirm. We review the factual findings underlying a district court s ruling on a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). When evaluating the denial of a suppression motion, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. The evidence suppress resulted Dinkins court erred in statements that Dinkins sought to the execution of search warrant on Dinkins residence. and Id. first from concluding that a argues probable that cause issuance of the search warrant in this case. the district supported the When presented with an application for a search warrant, the magistrate s task is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, . evidence . . of there a is crime a fair will be probability found in a that particular Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). 2 contraband or place. The reviewing court must determine whether the warrant application provide[d] the magistrate with a substantial existence of probable cause. accord great determination. deference to basis for Id. at 239. a determining the Reviewing courts magistrate s probable cause United States v. Clyburn, 24 F.3d 613, 617 (4th Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the record and agree with the district court that the magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed to support issuance of a search warrant of Dinkins residence. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Dinkins motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the search. Dinkins also challenges the denial of his motion to suppress an incriminating statement regarding his ownership of the firearm, claiming he was not advised of his rights required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). as However, the district court found credible the testimony of two arresting officers that verbal Miranda warnings were issued prior to Dinkins statement. We defer to the district court s credibility determinations, for it is the role of the district court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pre-trial motion to suppress. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 We have reviewed the construing and conclude findings credibility record, are not the Government, the evidence court in did that clearly the not light err suppress the contested statement. in the district erroneous, most and favorable denying court s the that, to motion the to Although Dinkins argues on appeal that his claim is supported by the lack of a written waiver, a written waiver is not required under Miranda. See North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979). We court. legal before therefore affirm the judgment of the district 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.
