United States of America v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 2004 . The motion is hereby granted

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4882
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES HENRY ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
03-3-CCB)
Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: September 30, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph J. Gigliotti, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant.
Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Ari S. Casper,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 4 --

*Counsel for Robinson has filed a motion seeking permission to
provide supplemental argument to challenge certain aspects of
Robinson’s sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531
(2004). The motion is hereby granted, and the motion to file
supplemental argument is deemed to provide the supplemental
argument regarding the effects of Blakely. After consideration of
the order issued by the en banc court in United States v. Hammoud,
No. 03-4253, 2004 WL 17030309 (4th Cir. Aug. 2, 2004)(order),
petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Aug. 6, 2004) (No.
04-193), we find no error in Robinson’s sentence.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Charles Henry Robinson appeals from the judgment of the
district court convicting him of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B) (2000); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000); and
being a felon in possession of firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g). Robinson claims that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm. *
We review legal conclusions de novo, while reviewing
factual findings for clear error. Ornelas v. United States, 517
U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873
(4th Cir. 1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, we
review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
See United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).
Robinson first claims that the district court erred in
finding that he was advised of his constitutional rights pursuant
to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Detective L.T. Seals

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
testified that he recited the Miranda warnings twice to Robinson,
first on a neighbor’s porch and then in Robinson’s living room.
Moreover, Detective Seals, Detective Matt Knight, and Sergeant A.J.
Bickauskus testified that Robinson was given Miranda warnings
inside the living room, and that he acknowledged his understanding
of those warnings. Further, Robinson’s witnesses, Stacie Nelson
and Wendell Woodard, Jr., provided contradictory testimony as to
whether the officers advised Robinson of his Miranda rights. The
district court found the officers’ testimony credible, and such
credibility findings are not generally reviewable. See United
States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). Therefore,
the district court did not clearly err in finding that Robinson
received the Miranda warnings.
Next, Robinson claims that even if he was provided with
the Miranda rights, his statements following the warnings were
coerced because he did not freely and voluntarily waive his right
to silence. We have reviewed the record and conclude that under
the totality of the circumstances the incriminating statements
Robinson made after waiving his Miranda rights were voluntary. See
United States v. Cristobal, 293 F.3d 134, 139-40 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 537 U.S. 963 (2002).
Accordingly, we affirm Robinson’s conviction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --