UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4626
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD E. WATTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00442-HEH)
Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 16, 2007
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig S. Cooley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck
Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Elizabeth C. Wu, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald E. Watts was convicted after a bench trial of one
count of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more
of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b) (2000).
The district court sentenced Watts to 168 months of imprisonment,
and Watts timely appealed. On appeal, Watts asserts that the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence
obtained from a search of his person and the vehicle he was driving
because the traffic stop that preceded the searches was pretextual.
Watts also argues that the district court erred in imposing a two-
level enhancement of his offense level for possession of a firearm.
This court reviews the district court’s factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district
court’s legal determinations de novo. United States v. Grossman,
400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005). When a suppression motion has
been denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government. Id. We grant great deference to
factual findings based on credibility decisions. See United
States v. Locklear, 829 F.2d 1314, 1317 (4th Cir. 1987) (stating
that this court will decline to overturn a factual determination
founded on witness demeanor and credibility absent compelling
evidence to the contrary). Observation of any traffic violation,
no matter how minor, gives an officer probable cause to stop the
driver. United States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 731 (4th Cir.
- 2 -
1993). A stop for a traffic violation “does not become
unreasonable merely because the officer has intuitive suspicions
that the occupants of the car are engaged in some sort of criminal
activity.” Id. A routine and lawful traffic stop permits an
officer to detain the motorist to request a driver’s license and
vehicle registration, to run a computer check, and to issue a
citation. United States v. Brugal, 209 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir.
2000). Our review of the record in this case leads us to conclude
that the district court did not err in denying Watts’s motion to
suppress.
The Guidelines* provide for a two-level increase in a
defendant’s base offense level “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including
a firearm) was possessed.” USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). Application Note
3 of the Commentary to § 2D1.1 states that “[t]he adjustment should
be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly
improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” USSG
§ 2D1.1(b)(1), cmt. n.3. “In order to prove that a weapon was
present, the Government need show only that the weapon was
possessed during the relevant illegal drug activity.” United
States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001). The
district court’s determination that a firearm or other weapon was
present and justifies the enhancement is a factual question that is
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Apple, 915 F.2d 899,
*
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) (2005).
- 3 -
914 (4th Cir. 1990). Our review of the record leads us to conclude
that the district court correctly found that a preponderance of the
evidence showed that Watts possessed the handgun discovered in the
vehicle.
Accordingly, we affirm Watts’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
- 4 -