US v. Keith Paul, No. 13-4638 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4638 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEITH PAUL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-00044-2) Submitted: March 24, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark William Browning, SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Monica D. Coleman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith Paul appeals the district court s order revoking his supervised release. erred in denying his Paul contends that the district court motion to suppress evidence seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. allegedly Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review de novo a district court s legal conclusions on a motion to suppress. United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2013), pet. for cert. filed, ___ S. Ct. ___ (Feb. 14, 2014) (No. 13-8810). Paul s claim that seized evidence should have been suppressed fails because the exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised release revocation proceedings. See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 365 (1998) (stating that exclusionary rule . . . is incompatible with the traditionally flexible, administrative procedures of parole revocation ); United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 393-95 (4th Cir. 1999) (applying Scott in context of federal supervised release revocation proceedings). We therefore affirm the district court s order. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.