Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Scovens, 05-4971 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-4971 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4971 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS SCOVENS, a/k/a Lucky, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CR-05-35-WDQ) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Warren Bennett, Gary
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4971 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS SCOVENS, a/k/a Lucky, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CR-05-35-WDQ) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Warren Bennett, Gary E. Bair, BENNETT & BAIR, LLP, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carlos Scovens pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, he contends that the warrant was overbroad and was executed in an unconstitutional manner. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs on appeal, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order denying Scovens’ motion to suppress. See United States v. Scovens, No. CR-05-35-WDQ (D. Md. June 14, 2005; entered June 15, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer