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)
17-4125•United States of America v. Michael P. Lough
17-4125Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 4, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4125
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL P. LOUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00018-IMK-MJA-1)
Submitted: April 26, 2018 Decided: May 4, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katy J. Cimino, Clarksburg, West Virginia, Kristen M. Leddy, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sarah W.
Montoro, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael P. Lough pled guilty, pursuant to a conditional plea agreement, to
possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (2012). The
district court sentenced Lough to 37 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Lough
challenges the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress.
In United States v. McLamb, 880 F.3d 685 (4th Cir. 2018), we addressed a
challenge to the same warrant at issue here and concluded that, even if the warrant
violated the Fourth Amendment, the good faith exception precluded suppression of the
evidence. Id. at 689-90. In light of McLamb, we conclude that the district court did not
err in denying Lough’s motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.