UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Lenn DIXON, Defendant, Appellant, 257 F. App'x 336

PER CURIAM. After the district court denied his motion to suppress drug evidence seized at the time of his arrest, defendant-appellant Dixon entered a conditional guilty plea to the one-count indictment charging him with distributing fifty grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). The conditional plea reserved Dixon’s right to seek appellate review of the court’s disallowance of his suppression motion.

That motion had been the subject of an evidentiary hearing before the Magistrate Judge whose comprehensive amended recommended decision was affirmed by the district court. Dixon appeals from his conviction, focusing on his contention that the court erred in denying his suppression motion. We have heard argument and reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, examining the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact for clear error and his legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Coplin, 468 F.3d 96, 100 (1st Cir.2006).

Finding no error in the court’s denial of the suppression motion, we affirm the judgment of conviction. In affirming, we do so substantially for the same reasons set out in the Magistrate Judge’s February 3, 2006 amended recommended decision.