United States v. Coleman ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-4904
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    QUENTIN COLEMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., District Judge. (CR-03-28)
    Submitted:   June 18, 2004                 Decided:   July 13, 2004
    Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    L. Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg,
    West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States
    Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Quentin Coleman appeals from the judgment of the district
    court convicting him of possession of a firearm as a convicted
    felon, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    , 924 (2000).     Finding no
    error, we affirm.
    Coleman’s sole claim on appeal is that the district court
    erred in denying his motion to suppress.         Because this claim
    involves mixed questions of fact and law, this court reviews the
    factual findings of the district court for clear error and the
    legal conclusions drawn from the facts de novo.      See Ornelas v.
    United States, 
    517 U.S. 690
    , 699 (1996); United States v. Gerant,
    
    995 F.2d 505
    , 508 (4th Cir. 1993).
    Coleman claims that Patrolman Charles Kittle of the
    Martinsburg, West Virginia, Police Department, lacked a reasonable,
    articulable suspicion to detain him pending his investigation of a
    suspected firearms crime.    See Terry v. Ohio, 
    392 U.S. 1
    , 30
    (1968).   Whether there is reasonable suspicion depends on the
    totality of the circumstances, including the information known to
    the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from that
    information at the time of the stop.         See United States v.
    Crittendon, 
    883 F.2d 326
    , 328 (4th Cir. 1989).
    Kittle received a report that three men were carrying
    rifles in the CSX train yards.    At the time Kittle seized Coleman,
    Kittle knew that Coleman was thirty yards from the CSX tracks and
    - 2 -
    was walking away from the tracks carrying a bag large enough to
    carry a shotgun.    Further, Coleman falsely denied having come from
    the tracks and also claimed to be walking away from a street that,
    in fact, Kittle had observed him walking toward.             In addition,
    Coleman was known to Kittle as an individual who carried weapons in
    the past.     Given these circumstances, we conclude that Kittle’s
    decision    to   detain   Coleman    for    a   brief   investigation   was
    justified.*
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.   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
    *
    Because Coleman’s abandonment of the bag occurred after
    Kittle seized him, the abandonment is not relevant to the
    reasonable suspicion analysis or to the question of whether Coleman
    had a privacy interest in the bag.
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-4904

Judges: Motz, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 7/13/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024