US v. Julius B. Brown
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00525-GLR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999193776].. [13-4307]
Appeal: 13-4307
Doc: 17
Filed: 09/16/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4307
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JULIUS B. BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(8:12-cr-00525-GLR-1)
Submitted:
September 11, 2013
Decided:
September 16, 2013
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hughie D. Hunt, II, KEMET & HUNT, LLC, College Park, Maryland,
for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jane
F.
Nathan,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-4307
Doc: 17
Filed: 09/16/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Julius
B.
Brown
appeals
from
his
conviction
and
sentence of twelve months of probation and a $430.00 fine for
driving
under
the
influence
of
alcohol,
in
violation
of
36
C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) (2013), and improper use of a cell phone, in
violation
Supp.
2012),
judge.
his
of
Md.
Code
Ann.,
following
his
Transp.
bench
§ 21-1124.2
trial
before
(LexisNexis
a
magistrate
Brown argues that the magistrate judge erred in denying
motion
traffic
to
stop.
suppress
The
the
fruits
Government
of
contends
his
seizure
that
we
during
should
a
not
consider the issue because Brown did not timely brief his appeal
to the district court under D. Md. Loc. R. 302.
3402 (2006); Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g).
18 U.S.C. §
Although we assume for the
sake of this appeal that Brown’s failure to comply with the
district court’s local rules forfeited, rather than waived, the
issue of his seizure’s legality, we nonetheless affirm.
In a criminal case, forfeited issues are reviewed for
plain
error.
(1993).
United
States
v.
Olano,
507
U.S.
725,
733-34
To establish plain error, Brown must show that “an
error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error
affected his substantial rights.”
478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Muhammad,
Even if Brown satisfies
these requirements, however, we retain discretion to correct the
error, which we will “not exercise unless the error seriously
2
Appeal: 13-4307
Doc: 17
Filed: 09/16/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.”
omitted).
Id.
(internal
quotation
marks
and
alteration
if
they
Brown fails to meet this high standard.
Officers
may
make
a
traffic
stop
have
reasonable, articulable suspicion that a driver has committed a
traffic violation.
United States v. McBride, 676 F.3d 385, 391-
92 (4th Cir. 2012).
“A reasonable suspicion is demonstrated
when an officer is able to point to specific and articulable
facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those
facts,
evince
suspicion
or
more
hunch
than
of
an
inchoate
criminal
and
activity.”
unparticularized
United
States
v.
Ortiz, 669 F.3d 439, 444 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude
that the magistrate judge did not err, much less plainly so, in
finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Brown
and investigate whether the cause of his erratic driving might
be intoxication.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Brown’s motion to
suppress.
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
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?