United States of America v. Josh T. Wimer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4508
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSH T. WIMER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cr-00028-NKM-1)
Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Andrea L. Harris, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellant. Rick Mountcastle, Acting United States Attorney, Heather L. Carlton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Connor Kelley, Third Year Law Intern, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
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admitting that his driver’s license was revoked.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.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --