US v. Antonio Watkins, No. 13-4598 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4598 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANTONIO LAMAR WATKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:12-cr-00304-TMC-1) Submitted: March 31, 2014 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, and May 9, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan M. Milling, MILLING LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antonio Lamar Watkins appeals from his convictions after a jury trial for drug and firearm offenses. On appeal, Watkins only argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Finding no error, we affirm. In considering the denial of a suppression motion, we review the district court s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Kelly, 592 F.3d 586, 589 (4th Cir. 2010). The court view[s] the facts in the the light most favorable to Government, as the party prevailing below. United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th The Cir. 2013). court also defer[s] to the district court s credibility findings, as it is the role of the [trial] court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pre-trial motion to suppress. United States v. Griffin, 589 F.3d 148, 150-51 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the transcript of the motion to suppress hearing and the district court s detailed ruling on the motion from the bench and find no clear error in the district court s finding of facts or error in its legal conclusions. defer to its credibility findings. We Because the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, we affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2 legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
