James Carmichael Smith, Jr., pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm reserving his right to contest the district court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his person. On appeal, he contests the denial of the suppression motion. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We review a district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and 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, this court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). Construing the facts as required, we find no reversible error. Accordingly we affirm Smith’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED