Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 08-4671
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-01254-MBS-1)
Submitted:
SHEDD,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
September 9, 2011
HAMILTON,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin
Bernard
Badger
appeals
his
life
sentence
by
convicted
felon,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
cocaine,
in
violation
of
21
U.S.C.A.
841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), (C), (D) (West 1999 & Supp. 2011) (Count Two).
On
erred
vehicle
on
in
admitting
Count
One
and,
firearm
in
seized
accordance
from
with
Badgers
Anders
v.
the
grounds
for
district
appeal
court
on
Count
plainly
Two
erred
but
in
questioning
admitting
drug
whether
firearm.
the
district
court
erred
in
admitting
the
United States v.
In enforcing the
Fourth
Amendments
guarantees
of
2
sanctity
of
the
home
and
the
suppression
in
is
evidence
that
is
the
fruit
of
good-faith
not
of
subject
reliance
to
the
on
thenbinding
exclusionary
rule.
Circuit
United
In
the
passenger
compartment
or
when
it
is
reasonable
to
gun
was
seized
pursuant
to
an
unlawful
he
was
arrested
would
be
found
in
the
truck.
March 29, 2006, almost three years before Gant was decided and
pursuant to our interpretation of Belton, which authorized an
automobile search incident to a recent occupants arrest.
United States v. Milton, 52 F.3d 78, 80 (4th Cir. 1995).
we
hold
that
the
exclusionary
rule
does
not
apply
See
Thus,
to
the
an
unlawful
seizure.
Because
Badger
failed
to
move
to
assertion
of
authority
but
fled,
California v.
of
the
drugs
seizure, and the district court did not err in admitting them.
See id. at 628-29; United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 546
(4th Cir. 2005).
reasonable.
We
review
sentence
under
an
abuse
of
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Badger.
Badger was
However, we remand
to
the
district
court
with
instructions
to
correct
the
This
writing,
of
court
his
requires
right
to
that
petition
counsel
the
inform
Supreme
Badger,
Court
of
in
the
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and