UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4229
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ISAQ RAHIM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00496)
Submitted: September 5, 2007 Decided: September 14, 2007
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, Winston David Holliday, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Isaq Rahim was convicted of one
count of trafficking counterfeit goods, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 2320(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). The district court sentenced
Rahim to three years’ probation with six months’ home confinement
and a $100 special assessment. Rahim timely appealed.
Rahim’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court erred by denying Rahim’s motion to suppress evidence
seized after a pretextual traffic stop. Rahim did not file a pro
se supplemental brief, despite being notified of his right to do
so. The Government declined to file a responding brief. Finding
no error, we affirm.
We review the factual findings underlying the denial of
a motion to suppress for clear error and the legal conclusions de
novo. United States v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 187, 193 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 546 U.S. 856 (2005). The evidence is construed in
the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. United
States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). Because
Officer Deering had probable cause to believe that a traffic
violation occurred, the decision to stop Rahim’s vehicle was
objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of
the officer’s subjective motivations. See Whren v. United States,
- 2 -
517 U.S. 806, 810-13 (1996); United States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d
726, 730 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1006 (1994). Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court
correctly denied the motion to suppress.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Rahim’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform Rahim, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Rahim requests
that such 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 Rahim.
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 -