US v. Gerald Swiger
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00044-IMK-MJA-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. .. [16-4015]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
GERALD A. SWIGER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00044-IMK-MJA-1)
January 18, 2017
February 3, 2017
Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen M.
Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, David J.
Perri, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Gerald A. Swiger appeals his conviction of being a felon in
Pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, Swiger challenges the
evidence discovered as a result of a frisk.
He argues that the
review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error and
its legal determinations de novo.
F.3d 314, 317 (4th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Elston, 479
We view the facts in the light
most favorable to the prevailing party, here the Government.
United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th Cir. 2013).
After thoroughly reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs,
The court correctly determined that the investigatory
Swiger was engaging in criminal conduct, namely, trespassing.
The court also correctly determined that, given the totality of
the circumstances, there was reasonable suspicion that Swiger
was armed and dangerous, justifying a frisk of his person.
note that our en banc decision in United States v. Robinson, No.
Pg: 3 of 3
14-4902, 2017 WL 280727 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2017) (en banc),
precludes Swiger’s reliance on the panel opinion in that case.
See United States v. Swiger, No. 1:15-cr-00044-
IMK-MJA (N.D. W. Va. July 17, 2015).
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?