UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. [REDACTED] MILES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. [REDACTED]
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
May 18, 2012
477 Fed.Appx. 771
Finally, Miles suggests that the district court failed to explain adequately its reasons for the extent of the departure. However, the sentencing judge need only “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 328 (quoting Rita, 551 U.S. at 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456). We are satisfied that the district court‘s explanation for the sentence did not constitute procedural error.
We therefore affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Andrew WARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-4787
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Submitted: April 24, 2012. Decided: May 18, 2012.
477 Fed.Appx. 771
Christopher J. Purpura, Office of William Purpura, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Peter M. Nothstein, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Consonant with the terms of his conditional plea agreement, Christopher Andrew Ward appeals the district court‘s denial of his motion to suppress evidence leading to his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We have reviewed the record, and we affirm.
The district court‘s legal conclusions underlying a suppression determination are reviewed de novo while its factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Guijon-Ortiz, 660 F.3d 757, 762 (4th Cir.2011). Because the district court denied the motion to suppress, the evidence is construed on appeal in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 320 (4th Cir.2004).
The crux of Ward‘s argument on appeal is that he was “seized” for purposes
But, as the Government points out, a Fourth Amendment “seizure” occurs only when, “under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the suspect‘s position ‘would not feel free to leave or otherwise terminate the encounter.‘” United States v. Perry, 560 F.3d 246, 253 (4th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Weaver, 282 F.3d 302, 309 (4th Cir.2002)). As we have emphasized, “[t]he fact that a police officer seeks cooperation or information by itself ... does not establish a seizure.” United States v. Black, 525 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.2008). Thus, “[i]f all that is involved is the officer approaching a person, announcing that he is an officer, and asking if the person would be willing to answer some questions, then no reasonable suspicion is required because no ‘seizure’ has occurred.” United States v. McCoy, 513 F.3d 405, 411 (4th Cir.2008).
In Ward‘s case, the three officers involved remained seated in the pickup truck while Ward was on a sidewalk nearby, were not brandishing firearms, did not command Ward to stop or move his arms, did not physically touch Ward, and merely asked a single question in a conversational tone. On these facts, we can only conclude that Ward was free to leave the officers without responding to their question, but voluntarily chose not to—a classic scenario of a consensual police-citizen encounter that does not require any reasonable suspicion. Weaver, 282 F.3d at 309-10; United States v. Orman, 486 F.3d 1170, 1175-76 (9th Cir.2007).
In our view, the combination of these circumstances constitutes “sufficient objective evidence” demonstrating reasonable suspicion that Ward was carrying a weapon. United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 336 (4th Cir.2008). And immediately after he was tackled, Ward admitted that he had a weapon, giving the officers probable cause to search his person until they found it. The officers’ actions therefore did not violate Ward‘s Fourth Amendment rights.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Antonio TILLMAN, a/k/a Main, a/k/a Maine, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-4706
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Submitted: April 25, 2012. Decided: May 22, 2012.