The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-4894•United States of America v. Johari Jibri Anderson
01-4894Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 11, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4894
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHARI JIBRI ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-01-95)
Submitted: May 28, 2002 Decided: June 11, 2002
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey B. Welty, POYNER & SPRUILL, L.L.P., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Johari Jibri Anderson appeals the district court’s order
convicting him of being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000), after denying his
motion to suppress evidence. He claims that his encounter with the
police constituted a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment
that was unsupported by reasonable suspicion and exceeded the scope
of the apartment tenant’s consent to search the apartment in which
Anderson was present. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States
v. Anderson, No. CR-01-95 (M.D.N.C. June 20 and November 19, 2001).
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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.