Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    United States v. Parker Coleman, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Parker Antron Coleman appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his residence and his subsequent conviction on drug, firearm, and money laundering charges. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that the search warrant was appropriately authorized under state law and that evidence of Coleman's prior drug conviction, his relationship with his probation officer, and the money she loaned him were relevant and not an abuse of discretion to admit. 3) The court concluded that the district court did not err in its rulings and affirmed Coleman's convictions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Parker Coleman, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    116 views4 pages
    1) Parker Antron Coleman appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his residence and his subsequent conviction on drug, firearm, and money laundering charges. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that the search warrant was appropriately authorized under state law and that evidence of Coleman's prior drug conviction, his relationship with his probation officer, and the money she loaned him were relevant and not an abuse of discretion to admit. 3) The court concluded that the district court did not err in its rulings and affirmed Coleman's convictions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-11-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4117

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Parker Antron Coleman appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his residence and his subsequent conviction on drug, firearm, and money laundering charges. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that the search warrant was appropriately authorized under state law and that evidence of Coleman's prior drug conviction, his relationship with his probation officer, and the money she loaned him were relevant and not an abuse of discretion to admit. 3) The court concluded that the district court did not err in its rulings and affirmed Coleman's convictions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    116 views4 pages

    United States v. Parker Coleman, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Parker Antron Coleman appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his residence and his subsequent conviction on drug, firearm, and money laundering charges. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that the search warrant was appropriately authorized under state law and that evidence of Coleman's prior drug conviction, his relationship with his probation officer, and the money she loaned him were relevant and not an abuse of discretion to admit. 3) The court concluded that the district court did not err in its rulings and affirmed Coleman's convictions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4117

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    PARKER ANTRON COLEMAN, a/k/a KP,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00238-RJC-DSC-1)

    Submitted:

    November 25, 2014

    Decided:

    November 26, 2014

    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Brian M. Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.


    Anne M.
    Tompkins, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Parker Antron Coleman appeals from the denial of his
    motion to suppress evidence and his conviction following a jury
    trial

    on

    drug-trafficking,

    offenses.

    firearm,

    and

    money-laundering

    Coleman contends that the district court erred by

    allowing the use of evidence seized during the search of his


    residence and by allowing the admission of evidence of his prior
    marijuana-trafficking conviction and the fact that he began a
    romantic

    relationship

    with

    his

    probation

    officer,

    Stephanie

    Peppers, who later provided money to enable him to start the


    marijuana trafficking underlying these convictions.
    Coleman

    contends

    that

    the

    district

    We affirm.

    court

    erred

    by

    failing to suppress evidence seized from his residence because


    the search warrant was not issued pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
    41.

    Because

    Coleman

    failed

    to

    raise

    this

    argument

    district court, we review this issue for plain error.

    in

    the

    United

    States v. Robinson, 275 F.3d 371, 383 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing
    United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993)).
    41(b)

    provides

    that

    [a]t

    the

    request

    of

    Rule

    federal

    law

    enforcement officer . . . a magistrate judge with authority in


    the district . . . has authority to issue a warrant to search
    for and seize a person or property located within the district.
    As

    we

    have

    previously

    determined,

    when

    an

    investigation

    is

    conducted by both federal and state agencies, the investigators


    2

    can use either federal or state investigatory tools.

    United

    States v. Claridy, 601 F.3d 276, 282 (4th Cir. 2010).

    The

    warrant at issue in this case was issued by a state judicial


    officer

    to

    state

    law

    enforcement

    officer

    and

    directed

    the

    officer to file a return with the state judge who issued the
    warrant.

    Because the warrant was appropriately authorized under

    state law, we find no error, much less plain error, by the


    district court not sua sponte suppressing evidence discovered
    pursuant to the state search warrant.
    Coleman also contends that the district court erred by
    allowing the admission of evidence of his prior conviction, that
    Peppers was his probation officer, and that he and Peppers were
    in

    romantic

    relationship.

    Peppers

    testified

    that

    she

    met

    Coleman in the summer of 2007, when she was assigned to be his


    probation officer following his conviction in Mississippi for
    trafficking marijuana.

    In January 2008, the relationship became

    personal and she resigned from her job.

    In early 2009, Peppers

    loaned Coleman $5000 so he could buy marijuana to start a drug


    trafficking

    business.

    She

    testified

    that

    she

    knew

    he

    would

    repay her based on his determination to be successful and the


    fact that he had previously been involved in drug trafficking.
    We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in overruling Colemans objections to the challenged
    evidence.

    The

    evidence

    was
    3

    intrinsic

    to

    the

    marijuana

    trafficking charges Coleman faced in the underlying trial.


    United

    States

    v.

    Otuya,

    720

    F.3d

    183,

    188

    (4th

    Cir.

    See
    2013)

    (allowing admission of evidence of acts intrinsic to the charged


    crime),

    cert.

    denied,

    134

    S.

    Ct.

    1279

    (2014).

    The

    prior

    conviction led to Coleman meeting Peppers, developing a personal


    relationship with her, borrowing money from her, and ultimately
    making the purchases of marijuana.

    The prior conviction and the

    fact that Peppers was his probation officer were relevant facts
    that helped to complete the story of the crime.

    See United

    States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306, 316 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
    quotation marks and citation omitted).

    Additionally, Peppers

    testified that it was because of Colemans prior conviction that


    she

    agreed

    to

    loan

    him

    the

    money

    underlying marijuana business.


    in

    the

    admission

    Williams,

    740

    of

    F.3d

    this
    308,

    he

    needed

    to

    start

    the

    We find no abuse of discretion

    evidence.
    314

    See

    United

    (4th

    Cir.

    2014)

    the

    district

    States v.
    (providing

    standard).
    Accordingly,
    and

    affirm

    Colemans

    we

    affirm

    convictions.

    We

    courts

    dispense

    rulings

    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

    You might also like