UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 98-4089

LARRY EUGENE LUCKEY,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen, District Judge.
(CR-96-25-MU)

Submitted: September 22, 1998

Decided: October 19, 1998

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.
Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian L. Whisler, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Larry Eugene Luckey appeals his conviction for arson in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 844 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We affirm.

Luckey entered a conditional guilty plea to the charges against him,
reserving his right to contest the validity of a prior confession on the
ground that it was involuntary. The voluntariness of a confession is
a question of law subject to de novo review. See Correll v. Thompson,

, 1290 (4th Cir. 1995). A confession is voluntary if it is
"the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation,
coercion, or deception on the part of the police" which overbore the
will of the accused. Poyner v. Murray, 

, 1413 (4th Cir.
1992). In determining whether a defendant's will is overborne, courts
consider the totality of the surrounding circumstances. See
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 

, 227 (1973).

Upon consideration of the totality of the attendant circumstances,
we conclude that the Government demonstrated the voluntariness of
Luckey's confession by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lego v.
Twomey, 

, 489 (1972) (providing standard). Accord-
ingly, we affirm Luckey's conviction. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2