Monrail Lashun Maddox pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). Maddox reserved the right to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and review its legal determinations de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). Finding no error, we affirm.

We find there was no clear error in the district court’s findings. Wé further find the legal determinations are correct. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED