United States v. Sims

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4987
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SIDNEY LAWRENCE SIMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00051-WO-1)
Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: May 5, 2009
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant
United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sidney Lawrence Sims pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The conditional plea preserved
Sims’s right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion
to suppress. Sims was sentenced to seventy-five months’
imprisonment. Sims’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but alleging that
the district court erred in denying Sims’s motion to suppress.
Sims filed a pro se supplemental brief, reiterating the
arguments raised in counsel’s brief. The Government did not
file a reply brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In reviewing the district court’s ruling on a motion
to suppress, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error, and its legal determinations de novo. United
States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481 (4th Cir. 2008). The facts
are reviewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
below. United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 628 (4th Cir.
2007).
With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the
transcript of the suppression hearing, we conclude the district
court did not err in denying Sims’s motion to suppress. See
United States v. Burton, 228 F.3d 524, 528 (4th Cir. 2008)
2
(finding that officers must have both reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity as well as reason to believe suspect armed and
dangerous in order to conduct constitutional frisk for weapons).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this
case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Sims, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Sims requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Sims. 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