United States of America v. Christopher D. Tavenner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER D. TAVENNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00530-CMH-1)
Submitted: October 6, 2010 Decided: November 16, 2010
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Brian L. Mizer, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United
States Attorney, Jason H. Poole, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher D. Tavenner appeals his conviction for one
count of possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 844 (2006). He claims the magistrate judge erred in denying
his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search as
an incident to a lawful arrest. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews the factual findings underlying the
denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and the legal
conclusions de novo. United States v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 187,
193 (4th Cir. 2005). The evidence is construed in the light
most favorable to the prevailing party below. United States v.
Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). Probable cause to
arrest is defined as:
facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge
that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or
one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the
circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed,
is committing, or is about to commit an offense. The
evidence needed to establish probable cause is more
than a mere suspicion, rumor, or strong reason to
suspect but less than evidence sufficient to convict.
United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 1070, 1073-74 (4th Cir. 1994)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). “[T]he district
court is entitled to respect the inferences drawn by officers
from their ‘own experience in deciding whether probable cause
exists.’” United States v. White, 549 F.3d 946, 951 (4th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2008) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 700
(1996)).
We conclude that the facts, as found by the magistrate
judge and affirmed by the district court, support the finding
that there was probable cause for the arrest. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment because the search was a lawful search as an
incident to the arrest. 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

-- 3 of 3 --