US v. Curtis Watkin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00120-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999470523].. [14-4342]

Appeal: 14-4342

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4342

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CURTIS WATKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:13-cr-00120-1)

Submitted:

October 28, 2014

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

November 6, 2014

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian J. Kornbrath, Acting Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D.
Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R.
Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, C. Haley Bunn,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4342

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Curtis Watkins entered a conditional guilty plea to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C.

§§

922(g)(1),

924(a)(2)

eighty-four

months’

imprisonment

released.

Watkins’

district
appeal,

court’s
Watkins

concluding

that

plea

(2012),

preserved

order

denying

argues

that

the

and

his
the

officers’

and

three
his

was

years’

right

motion
district

sentenced

to

supervised

to

appeal

suppress.

court

stop-and-frisk

to

On

erred

satisfied

the

in
the

reasonable suspicion standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392
U.S. 1 (1968).
When considering a district court’s ruling on a motion
to

suppress,

this

court

reviews

the

district

court’s

legal

conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
United

States

v.

McGee,

736

F.3d

263,

269

(4th

Cir.

2013).

Where, as here, the district court denies a suppression motion,
we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government.

United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th Cir.

2013).
“[A]n

officer

may,

consistent

with

the

Fourth

Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer
has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity
is

afoot.”

Illinois

v.

Wardlow,

528

U.S.

119,

123

(2000).

“Moreover, if the officer has a reasonable fear for his own and
2

Appeal: 14-4342

Doc: 26

others’

Filed: 11/06/2014

safety

based

on

an

Pg: 3 of 4

articulable

suspicion

that

the

suspect may be armed and presently dangerous, the officer may
conduct a protective search of, i.e., frisk, the outer layers of
the suspect’s clothing for weapons.”
376

F.3d

270,

275

(4th

Cir.

2004)

United States v. Holmes,
(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
The officer must have “at least a minimal level of
objective justification for making the stop” and “must be able
to

articulate

more

than

an

inchoate

suspicion or hunch of criminal activity.”

and

unparticularized

Wardlow, 528 U.S. at

123-24 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Courts

assess the legality of a Terry stop under the totality of the
circumstances,

giving

“due

weight

to

common

sense

judgments

reached by officers in light of their experience and training.”
United States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 321 (4th Cir. 2004).
Applying these principles, we conclude that, under the totality
of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to
stop Watkins and frisk him for weapons.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

3

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-4342

Doc: 26

contentions

are

Filed: 11/06/2014

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4