US v. Sterlyn Hewlett, No. 13-4665 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4665 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STERLYN AVERY HEWLETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00043-1) Submitted: March 31, 2014 Decided: April 11, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sebastian M. Joy, JOY LAW OFFICE, Catlettsburg, Kentucky, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Sharon M. Frazier, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sterlyn Avery Hewlett 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. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and was sentenced to thirty-three months imprisonment. In the plea agreement, Hewlett reserved the right to challenge the district court s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from the vehicle he was driving. Hewlett contends on appeal that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress on the ground that the protective sweep incident to a stop. search was valid under a We affirm. When considering a district court s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the district court s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). United States v. When a suppression motion has been denied by the district court, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. Id. A factual finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite conviction that a mistake has been committed. and firm United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court s ultimate conclusion that the protective search is constitutional is a legal conclusion 2 which we review de novo. United States v. Griffin, 589 F.3d 148, 151-52 (4th Cir. 2009). With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing, the district court s order, and the parties briefs, we conclude Hewlett s motion to suppress was properly district court. See denied United for the States reasons v. stated Hewlett, No. by the 3:13-cr- 00043-1 (S.D. W.Va. May 3, 2013). 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.