United States v. Spratley

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5070
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY SPRATLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-04-168)
Submitted: June 24, 2005 Decided: July 11, 2005
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Amy L. Austin,
Meghan S. Skelton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
Michael J. Elston, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Spratley pled guilty to being a convicted felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
(2000), and was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment. He appeals
his conviction, arguing the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm.
Spratley alleges that the evidence obtained pursuant to
his stop and arrest should have been suppressed. We review the
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 (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).
The initial contact between police officers and Spratley
was consensual. See United States v. Weaver, 282 F.3d 302, 309
(4th Cir. 2002). The officers had reasonable suspicion to seize
Spratley and conduct a pat-down search based on the totality of the
circumstances, including the unusual manner in which he parked his
car, his nervous behavior, the bulge in his pocket, and the gun in
plain view in his car. See, e.g., United States v. Sokolow, 490
U.S. 1, 8 (1989); Weaver, 282 F.3d at 309-10. Moreover, to the
extent Spratley’s claim regarding the seizure of the gun from his
- 2 -
car is properly before the court, the gun was properly seized
because part of the gun was concealed, making its incriminating
character apparent. See United States v. Jackson, 131 F.3d 1105,
1109 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, our review of the record
reveals no reversible error.
We affirm Spratley’s conviction. 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 -