Opinion
No. 08-4975.
April 8, 2009.
May 12, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:07-cr-01475-HMH-1).
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Reginald Earl Rice appeals his conviction and life sentence for bank robbery by force or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006). Rice contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a constitutionally deficient search warrant. We affirm.
We review the district court's factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court's legal determinations de novo. United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 280 (4th Cir. 2007) ( citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006).
In reviewing the propriety of issuing a search warrant, the relevant inquiry is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to issue the warrant. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). Although the search warrant at issue failed to specify the exact address of the premises to be searched, under the totality of the circumstances we find there were sufficient corroborating facts establishing probable cause supporting the issuance and execution of the search warrant. See id. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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.