
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josh T. WIMER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-4508
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 30, 2018
    Decided: February 1, 2018
    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.
    Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Following a bench trial conducted by a federál 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Wimer’s motion to suppress the statement he made to the Forest Service Ranger admitting that his driver’s license was revoked.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.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade--quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  