US v. Albert Williams, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00223-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998422015] [09-4733]

Download PDF
US v. Albert Williams, Jr. Doc. 0 Case: 09-4733 Document: 36 Date Filed: 09/10/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4733 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALBERT LOPEZ WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00223-WO-1) Submitted: August 10, 2010 Decided: September 10, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. A. Wayne Harrison, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF A. WAYNE HARRISON, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 09-4733 Document: 36 Date Filed: 09/10/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Albert Lopez Williams, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized following a North Carolina police officer's stop of Williams's vehicle on suspicion that Williams violated N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-63(g) (2009), prohibiting the willful covering of any part of a registration plate. On appeal, Williams contends that the district court erred in finding that the stop was reasonable. 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 The facts States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481 (4th Cir. 2008). are reviewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. 2007). United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 628 (4th Cir. A vehicle stop constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and is permissible if the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred, Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996), or has a reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-22 (1968), regardless of the officer's subjective motivations, Whren, 517 U.S. at 810, 813-19. After reviewing the record, we hold that the district court's denial of Williams's motion 2 to suppress was not in Case: 09-4733 Document: 36 Date Filed: 09/10/2010 Page: 3 error. court. legal before Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument expressed not in aid the the materials decisional would process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?