United States v. Scott , 104 F. App'x 910 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4042
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GERALD M. SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CR-03-192)
Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: July 26, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J.
Elston, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gerald M. Scott appeals his conviction and forty-six
month prison sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon, and
a user of controlled substances, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1) and (3) (2000). Scott entered a guilty plea conditioned
on his ability to appeal the district court’s order denying Scott’s
motion to suppress evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Scott argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress. This court reviews the factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district
court’s legal determinations de novo. See Ornelas v. United
States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996). When a suppression motion has
been denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government. See United States v. Seidman, 156
F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).
With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the
record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the officer who
seized Scott did so based on a reasonable articulable suspicion
that Scott was engaged in criminal activity. “An officer may,
consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief,
investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable
suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” Illinois v. Wardlow,
528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). We
find that, given the totality of the circumstances, see United
- 2 -
States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989), Scott’s suspicious and
evasive behavior justified the officer’s actions. See United
States v. Mayo, 361 F.3d 802, 807-08 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we affirm Scott’s 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
- 3 -