UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5049
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT GREGORY TIMMS, a/k/a Congo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00508-WDQ)
Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: October 9, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Gregory Timms was convicted by a jury of one count
of possession of fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (2000). The district court sentenced Timms to
135 months of imprisonment, and Timms timely appealed. On appeal,
Timms asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion
to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his person after a
traffic stop because the stop was pretextual and not supported by
probable cause of a traffic violation. We affirm.
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
vehicle. United States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 731 (4th Cir.
1993). A stop for a traffic violation “does not become
unreasonable merely because the officer has intuitive suspicions
- 2 -
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). To further detain the vehicle requires a reasonable
suspicion on the part of the investigating officer that criminal
activity is afoot. Id. In determining whether there was
reasonable suspicion, the court must look at the totality of the
circumstances. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989).
Our review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that the
district court did not err in denying Timms’s motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm Timms’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 -