IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31344
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEMETRIUS GOODEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CR-02-ALL-J
--------------------
August 22, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Demetrius Gooden appeals his conditional guilty plea
conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He
reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress. We review the district court’s findings of
fact for clear error and the ultimate conclusion as to the
constitutionality of the law enforcement action de novo.1
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
1
United States v. Jordan, 232 F.3d 447, 448 (5th Cir.
2000).
No. 00-31344
-2-
Gooden argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress because, under Florida v. J.L.,2 a police
officer, acting exclusively on a tip from an anonymous informant,
does not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to justify an
investigatory stop and subsequent search and seizure. The
instant case is distinguishable from J.L. because, inter alia,
Gooden reached for his waistband when officers entered the tattoo
shop.3 Moreover, in United States v. Watson, we held that
reasonable suspicion existed for an investigative stop when, at
3:30 AM, an officer approached a vehicle in an abandoned parking
lot and the individual in the car moved his body as if to conceal
or retrieve something on the car floor.4
Gooden’s challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress
is without merit. His conviction is AFFIRMED.
2
529 U.S. 266 (2000).
3
Cf. J.L., 529 U.S. at 268; United States v. Roch, 5 F.3d
894, 897 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Rideau, 969
F.2d 1572, 1574-75 (5th Cir. 1992).
4
953 F.2d 895, 896 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1, 24 (1968).