UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICKEY OAKLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00268-CCB-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: August 4, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew H. Baida, ROSENBERG, MARTIN & GREENBERG, L.L.P.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Cheryl L. Crumpton, Kristi N. O’Malley,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mickey Oakley was convicted following his conditional
guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006). Oakley was sentenced to a total
of 292 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Oakley contends that
the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress
heroin and other evidence obtained as the result of illegal
searches and seizures conducted in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. We affirm.
We review factual findings underlying the district
court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Blake, 571 F.3d
331, 338 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1104 (2010).
We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, as the party prevailing below. United States v.
Griffin, 589 F.3d 148, 150 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S.
Ct. 1599 (2011).
Credible evidence shows that investigating officers’
independent observations of Oakley acting as predicted by a
confidential source provided reasonable suspicion that Oakley
was engaged in criminal activity justifying an investigatory
stop. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); Terry v.
2
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). Furthermore, credible evidence
established that when officers activated their lights and
blocked Oakley’s vehicle with their own, Oakley rapidly reversed
his vehicle and crashed into the police vehicle in an apparent
attempt to escape. As Oakley failed to yield to the show of
authority, no seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment occurred
at that moment. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626
(1991); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 598 (1989);
United States v. Letsinger, 93 F.3d 140, 143-46 (4th Cir. 1996).
Consequently, the district court did not err in denying the
motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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