Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Robert Hansen, 11-4609 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-4609 Visitors: 2
Filed: Apr. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT HANSEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00326-JRS-1) Argued: March 23, 2012 Decided: April 18, 2012 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Paul Geoffrey Gill, OFFI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT HANSEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00326-JRS-1) Argued: March 23, 2012 Decided: April 18, 2012 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Paul Geoffrey Gill, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Richard Daniel Cooke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Olivia L. Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from the district court’s denial of defendant Robert Hansen’s motion to suppress evidence that Virginia State Troopers found when searching his car after an undisputedly valid traffic stop. The search ensued after one trooper observed a clear plastic bag containing six cartons of unstamped cigarettes on the back seat. Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully reviewed the briefs, record, and relevant Virginia statutes, we agree with the district court’s analysis and affirm on its reasoning. 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