United States of America v. Kendrick Omar Cobb

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4538
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENDRICK OMAR COBB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:18-cr-00683-HMH-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2023 Decided: May 11, 2023
Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: David A. Brown, Sr., DABROWNLAW, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Leesa Washington, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kendrick Omar Cobb appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession of
a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2). On appeal, Cobb argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress statements he made during a custodial interrogation in which he had counsel but
was not informed of his right to counsel pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966).
When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the
court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Pulley, 987 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2021). We consider the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government and “must also give due weight to inferences drawn from
those facts by resident judges and law enforcement officers.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). We “particularly defer to a district court’s credibility determinations” and will
only “reverse a lower court’s finding of fact” if we are “left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err by
denying Cobb’s motion to suppress because Cobb’s retained counsel was present for the
duration of the interrogation. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 466 (“The presence of
counsel[] . . . would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of
police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self-incrimination].”);
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485-86 (1981) (“The Fifth Amendment right identified
in Miranda is the right to have counsel present at any custodial interrogation.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --