US v. Samantha Winter, No. 18-4520 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-4520 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMANTHA WINTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00007-LO-1) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: May 3, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melinda VanLowe, LAW OFFICE OF MELINDA L. VANLOWE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Colleen E. Garcia, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Following a jury trial, Samantha Winter was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, making a false statement in connection with the purchase of a firearm, and making a false statement to a licensed firearm dealer. The district court sentenced Winter to 2 years’ probation on each count to run concurrently, with the condition that she serve 15 days of intermittent incarceration, complete 80 hours of community service, participate in substance abuse and mental health treatment, and pay the $300 special assessment. On appeal, Winter contends that the district court erred by denying her motions to suppress statements she made and to exclude evidence recovered during a traffic stop of her vehicle while it was being driven by Devon Byrd, and she challenges the admission of this evidence during her trial. We review the factual findings underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and the court’s legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Bullette, 854 F.3d 261, 265 (4th Cir. 2017). Additionally, we review the district court’s admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321, 351 (4th Cir. 2010) With these standards in mind, we have considered carefully the arguments raised by Winter on appeal and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that the court properly denied the motions to suppress and to exclude evidence. United States v. Winter, No. 1:18-cr-00007-LO-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2018). Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in admitting the challenged evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court entered on July 20, 2018. We dispense with 2 oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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.
