UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5029
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEMUEL ZEKENA SHERMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00026-NCT)
Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lemuel Zekena Sherman appeals his conviction following
his conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2006). Prior to accepting the guilty plea, the
district court denied Sherman’s motion to suppress evidence
seized following a vehicle stop in Durham, North Carolina. We
affirm the denial of 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. United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d
267, 280 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517
U.S. 690, 699 (1996)). When evaluating the denial of a motion
to suppress, we review the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Government. United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704
(4th Cir. 2006).
Sherman alleges that there was no reasonable suspicion
justifying the stop of his vehicle. “[A]n officer may,
consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief,
investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable,
articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000) (citing Terry v.
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)). To conduct a Terry stop, there
must be “at least a minimal level of objective justification for
2
making the stop.” Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123. Reasonable
suspicion requires more than a hunch but less than probable
cause, and may be based on the collective knowledge of officers
involved in an investigation. See id. at 123-24; see also
United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 232 (1985).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government, we conclude that the district court did not err
when it denied Sherman’s motion to suppress. The officer who
stopped Sherman was an off-duty member of the Durham Police
Department who was working as a security guard at the Varsity
Ale House. Shortly after closing, at around 2:15 a.m., the
officer was in the restaurant’s crowded parking lot when he
heard three shots fired. He immediately turned toward where he
heard the shots and saw a car rapidly approaching him with its
lights off and several security officers pointing at the car and
shouting for him to stop it. Under the totality of the
circumstances, United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989),
we find that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion
to stop Sherman’s car.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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