Filed: Mar. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4572 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES D. ABBOTT, a/k/a John Jasper Roberson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-00-106) Submitted: January 16, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Steph
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4572 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES D. ABBOTT, a/k/a John Jasper Roberson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-00-106) Submitted: January 16, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Stephe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-4572
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES D. ABBOTT, a/k/a John Jasper Roberson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CR-00-106)
Submitted: January 16, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Stephen Welch, L.A. Smokey Brown, Jr., THE WELCH LAW FIRM, P.C.,
Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United
States Attorney, Isaac Johnson, Jr., Assistant United States Attor-
ney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James D. Abbott appeals the district court’s April 12, 2000,
denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from a rental car
in which he was a passenger.
We hold the district court did not err in concluding the
evidence was admissible, and we affirm on the reasoning the court
articulated at the hearing on motion to suppress the evidence. See
Whren v. United States,
517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996); United States v.
Hassan El,
5 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 1993).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not significantly aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2