Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josh T. WIMER, Defendant-Appellant.
Following a bench trial conducted by a federal magistrate judge, Josh T. Wimer was convicted of one count of driving a motor vehicle with a revoked driver's license, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.54(d), incorporating Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-301, and sentenced to one year of probation. The district court affirmed the conviction. On appeal to this court, Wimer contends that when he admitted that he was driving on a suspended license that he was seized by a United States Forest Service Ranger, and that the magistrate judge erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the ranger. Finding no error, we affirm.
The main issue on appeal is whether the magistrate judge erred in denying Wimer's motion to suppress the statement he made to the Forest Service Ranger admitting that his driver's license was revoked. Wimer contends that the encounter was not consensual. When considering the denial of a motion to suppress, this court reviews the district court's or magistrate judge's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Giddins, 858 F.3d 870, 878-79 (4th Cir. 2017). This court construes the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, in this case, the Government. United States v. Stover, 808 F.3d 991, 994 (4th Cir. 2015). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, including the district court's memorandum on appeal, and conclude that the magistrate judge did not err in denying the motion to suppress and, consequently, the court did not err in affirming the misdemeanor conviction.
Accordingly, we affirm the 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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-4508
Decided: February 01, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)