US v. Julius B. Brown
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00525-GLR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [13-4307]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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.
September 11, 2013
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
sentence of twelve months of probation and a $430.00 fine for
C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) (2013), and improper use of a cell phone, in
Brown argues that the magistrate judge erred in denying
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
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
Pg: 3 of 3
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
Brown fails to meet this high standard.
reasonable, articulable suspicion that a driver has committed a
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
Ortiz, 669 F.3d 439, 444 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
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
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Brown’s motion to
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
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?