UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4825
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH MCKENZIE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-125)
Submitted: April 12, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary L. Lumsden, Rhonda Lee Overstreet, LUMSDEN, OVERSTREET &
HANSEN, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United
States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States
Attorney, Carrol M. Ching, Third Year Practice Law Student,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph McKenzie Williams appeals his conviction and
sentence for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). He contends that the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because his
stop, arrest, and detention were not supported by probable cause.
We review a district court’s legal determinations de novo.
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United
States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). When a
suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the
light most favorable to the government. See United States v.
Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).
Williams argues that the informant used by the police was
not reliable and therefore did not provide probable cause. We hold
that the information provided by the informant contained
sufficient indicia of reliability because lying would have been
against his penal interests. See United States v. Miller, 925 F.2d
695, 699 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the record and conclude
that under the totality of the circumstances, sufficient probable
cause existed to support Williams’s stop, arrest, and detention.
See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230-32 (1983); United
States v. Singh, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2004 WL 691524, at *5 (4th Cir.
Apr. 2, 2004).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Williams’s conviction and
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
- 3 -