US v. Albert Williams, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4733 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALBERT LOPEZ WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

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