IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10455
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER VERNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(1:00-CR-79-2)
--------------------
October 15, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Christopher Verner appeals his conviction
for conspiracy to receive, possess, and conceal firearms, and
receipt and possession of stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 371, 922(j). He argues that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress evidence allegedly seized in violation of
his Fourth Amendment rights.
This court applies a two-tier standard in reviewing a district
court’s denial of a motion to suppress. United States v. Hunt, 253
F.3d 227, 229 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court’s fact findings
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
are reviewed for clear error and its ultimate conclusion as to the
constitutionality of the law enforcement action is reviewed de
novo. Id. at 229-30. The evidence is viewed in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party. Id. at 230.
Verner concedes that the initial stop of his vehicle was
justified, but he argues that the search of his person and
subsequent detainment lasted beyond that which is allowed by Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, “police officers may stop
and briefly detain an individual for investigative purposes if they
have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”
Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730, 736 (5th Cir.
2000). Reasonable suspicion must be supported by particular and
articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences
from those facts, reasonably warrant an intrusion. Id.
While Officer Bone was questioning Verner, he attempted to
walk away from the officer and was subsequently searched and
handcuffed. Verner was also non-responsive when Officer Bone asked
whether there were any weapons in the vehicle. Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government the
officer’s actions were reasonable. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27;
United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 840-41 (5th Cir. 1994)
(en banc).
The district court did not err in denying Verner’s motion to
suppress.
AFFIRMED.
2