UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4156
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHANIYRUS S. BOGLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CR-04-231)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Amy L. Austin,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Brian L.
Whisler, Michael S. Dry, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shaniyrus S. Bogle appeals his convictions for possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841 (2000), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000).*
Bogle entered a guilty plea conditioned on his ability to appeal
the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Bogle argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress. This court reviews the factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district
court’s legal determinations de novo. See Ornelas v. United
States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996). When a suppression motion has
been denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government. See United States v. Seidman, 156
F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).
With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the
record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the officer who
seized Bogle did so based on a reasonable articulable suspicion
that Bogle was engaged in criminal activity. “[A]n officer may,
consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief,
investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable
*
Bogle does not seek to challenge his sentence. Thus, United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), does not impact this
appeal.
- 2 -
suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” Illinois v. Wardlow,
528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30
(1968). We conclude that, given the totality of the circumstances,
see United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989), Bogle’s
suspicious and evasive behavior justified the officer’s actions.
See United States v. Mayo, 361 F.3d 802, 807-08 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we affirm Bogle’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 -