US v. Derick Legardy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00370-CCE-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999616576].. [14-4504, 14-4670, 14-4718]

Appeal: 14-4504

Doc: 66

Filed: 07/08/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4504

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DERICK LAMONT LEGARDY,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4670

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLES RONNELL WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.

Appeal: 14-4504

Doc: 66

Filed: 07/08/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

ALTON TREVON SIMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District
Judge.
(1:13-cr-00370-CCE-2;
1:13-cr-00370-CCE-4;
1:13-cr-00370-CCE-3)

Submitted:

June 30, 2015

Decided:

July 8, 2015

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North
Carolina;
Leza
L.
Driscoll,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina;
Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, P.C., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellants. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Andrew C. Cochran, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-4504

Doc: 66

Filed: 07/08/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, codefendants Derick Lamont
Legardy, Charles Ronnell Williams, and Alton Trevon Sims appeal
their sentences after pleading guilty to robbing a bank that had
FDIC-insured
(2012).

deposits,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§ 2113(a)

Pursuant to a conditional plea agreement, Williams also

challenges
suppress.

the

district

court’s

denial

of

his

motion

to

Finding no error, we affirm.

Williams’ motion to suppress challenged the investigative
stop and frisk that preceded his arrest.

We review factual

findings underlying a district court’s denial of a motion to
suppress for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
States v. Hill, 776 F.3d 243, 247 (4th Cir. 2015).

United

Consensual

encounters between a citizen and the police do not implicate the
Fourth Amendment, Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991),
but nonconsensual encounters must be supported by a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity.
27 (1968).

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21,

A seizure occurs when a “[police] officer, by means

of physical force or show of authority, terminates or restrains
[an individual’s] freedom of movement.”

Brendlin v. California,

551 U.S. 249, 254 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted);
accord United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980).
Whether there is reasonable suspicion to justify a stop
depends on “the totality of the circumstances,” including the
3

Appeal: 14-4504

Doc: 66

Filed: 07/08/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences
to be drawn at the time of the stop.

United States v. Foster,

634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011).

“[I]f the officer has a

‘reasonable fear for his own and others’ safety’ based on an
articulable
presently
search

suspicion
dangerous,’

of,

i.e.,

that
the

frisk,

clothing for weapons.”

the

suspect

officer
the

may

outer

may

be

conduct

layers

‘armed
a

of

and

protective

the

suspect’s

United States v. Holmes, 376 F.3d 270,

275 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 30-31).
Our de novo review of the record confirms that the district
court did not err in finding that, until the officers asked
about weapons, Williams’ encounter was consensual and did not
implicate

the

Fourth

Amendment.

We

agree

with

the

district

court that Williams was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes
when the officers inquired about weapons and that, based on the
totality of the circumstances, the officers had a reasonable,
articulable suspicion of criminal activity at the time of that
seizure.

We

therefore

conclude

that

the

district

court

correctly denied Williams’ motion to suppress.
Turning to Defendants’ challenges to their sentences, our
review

is

“under

a

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
that

the

error,

district

such

as

court

. . .

committed

improperly
4

no

We must “ensure

significant

calculating[]

standard.”

the

procedural
Guidelines

Appeal: 14-4504

Doc: 66

range.”
error,

Filed: 07/08/2015

Id. at 51.
then

we

Pg: 5 of 6

If there is no significant procedural
consider

the

sentence’s

substantive

reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances.”
We

presume

that

a

sentence

within

a

properly

Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable.

Id.

calculated

United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421 (2014).

A defendant can rebut this presumption only “by

showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
After

reviewing

transcripts,
sentences
The

we

are

conclude

both

district

the

presentence
that

procedurally

court

Id.

correctly

reports

Defendants’
and

and

within-Guidelines

substantively

calculated

sentencing

each

reasonable.
Defendant’s

advisory Guidelines range, listened to the parties’ arguments,
considered

the

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

(2012)

factors,

and

articulated its reasons for giving each Defendant a sentence
within his Guidelines range.

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

In

addition, no Defendant has made the showing necessary to rebut
the presumption of reasonableness accorded a within-Guidelines
sentence.

See Louthian, 756 F.3d at 306.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

5

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-4504

Doc: 66

contentions

are

Filed: 07/08/2015

adequately

Pg: 6 of 6

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6