US v. Nicholas Clay, No. 12-4536 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NICHOLAS ARMAND CLAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00304-WO-1) Submitted: December 27, 2012 Decided: January 15, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nicholas Armand Clay pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 922(g)(1) and 924(e) (2006). In the plea agreement, Clay reserved his right to appeal the district court s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized and statements made subsequent to his arrest. On appeal, Clay argues that there was no probable cause to justify his arrest and that any evidence resulting from such arrest should have been suppressed. We review factual We affirm. findings underlying the district court s denial of 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 a suppression motion has been denied, this court reviews favorable to the government. 210, 217 (4th Cir. 2008). the evidence in the light most United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d This court grants great deference to factual findings based on credibility determinations. States v. Moses, 540 F.3d 263, 268-69 (4th Cir. 2008). United Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in finding that there was sufficient probable cause to justify Clay s arrest motion. 2 and denying the suppression Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
