UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4756
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MERLE LEROY ADAMS, JR., a/k/a Merle Adams,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-4218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MERLE LEROY ADAMS, JR., a/k/a Merle Adams,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00115)
Submitted: February 23, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Richard
Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Merle Leroy Adams, Jr., pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a weapon and was sentenced to 180 months of
imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no
meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issue:
whether the district court erred in denying Adams’ motion to
suppress the evidence found on his person following a stop and
frisk by a police officer. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review the district court’s factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and review its
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, this court
construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.
1998). We find that the district court correctly determined that
the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down of
Adams, based on information given to the officer in-person by a man
who had just witnessed Adams “showing” (J.A. 37) a pistol. An
officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop and frisk where he
has reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity may be
afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); United States v.
Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 1989); see United States v.
- 3 -
Christmas, 222 F.3d 141, 143-44 (4th Cir. 2000) (discussing why
face-to-face encounters are more reliable than anonymous telephone
tips and distinguishing Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)).
Accordingly, this claim fails.
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires
that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the
client. 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
- 4 -