United States v. Murphy, 4th Cir. (2009)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4634
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
JENNIFER MURPHY,
Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge; Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07cr-00012-REP)
Submitted:
March 18, 2009
Decided:
April 9, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald M. Barley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.

Norman
Scott Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richard
Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jennifer Murphy appeals her convictions by a jury of
possession of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 844 (2006),
possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
5861(d) (2006), and maintaining a place for the purpose of
distributing controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
856
(2006);
imprisonment.
and
her
sentence
of
forty-one
months
of
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether

the district court properly denied Murphys motion to suppress
evidence. *
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
On appeal from a district courts denial of a motion
to suppress, the district courts factual findings are reviewed
for clear error and the legal determinations are reviewed de
novo.
2007).
See United States v. Buckner, 473 F.3d 551, 553 (4th Cir.
Under a clear error standard of review, this court will
reverse only if left with the definite and firm conviction that
United States v. Stevenson, 396
a mistake has been committed.
F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005)(quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City,
Murphy was informed of her right

supplemental brief but has not done so.
to
file
pro
se
470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)).
It is well-settled that this court
will give particular deference to a district courts credibility

determinations for it is the role of the district court to
observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pre-trial
motion to suppress.
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210,
232 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d

1161,
1169
(4th
Cir.
1995)).
Finally,
where,
as
here,
the
district court denies a motion to suppress, this court reviews

the
evidence
in
the
light
most
favorable
to
the
Government.
United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006).
The district court, after hearing the evidence at the
suppression hearing and a subsequent hearing, determined that
Murphy consented to the search.
the
contrary,
determination
this
Court
founded
on
Absent compelling evidence to
declines
witness
to
overturn
demeanor
and
factual
credibility.
United States v. Locklear, 829 F.2d 1314, 1317 (4th Cir. 1987)
(citing
1987)).
to
the
United
States
v.
Wolf,
813
F.2d
970,
975
(9th
Cir.
The record does not reveal compelling evidence contrary

district
courts
credibility
determination,
and
therefore, Murphys claim fails.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
We
remand to the district court for correction of the first page of

3
the written judgment to reflect that the offense in Count Two,

possession of cocaine, is a misdemeanor offense.
This
writing,
of
court
the
requires
right
to
that
petition
United States for further review.

be
filed,
but
counsel
counsel
the
inform
Supreme
Murphy,
Court
of
in
the
If Murphy requests a petition
believes
such
petition
would
be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation.
Counsels motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Murphy.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

United States v. Murphy, 4th Cir. (2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Murphy, 4th Cir. (2009)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Murphy, 4th Cir. (2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

March 18, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald M. Barley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether

Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the

a mistake has been committed.

F.3d 538, 542 (4th Cir. 2005)(quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City,

Murphy was informed of her right

470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)).

It is well-settled that this court

will give particular deference to a district courts credibility

United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210,

232 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d

district court denies a motion to suppress, this court reviews

Absent compelling evidence to

The record does not reveal compelling evidence contrary

therefore, Murphys claim fails.

remand to the district court for correction of the first page of

the written judgment to reflect that the offense in Count Two,

United States for further review.

If Murphy requests a petition

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

Counsels motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Murphy.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.