UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4102
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWARD MONROE LITTLE, a/k/a Ebay,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-03-12-V)
Submitted: February 17, 2006 Decided: March 14, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward Monroe Little was convicted after a jury trial of
one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams of more of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 846 (West 1999 & Supp.
2005), and one count of possession with intent to distribute five
grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841,
2 (West 1999 & Supp. 2005). Before trial, the Government filed a
notice of sentence enhancement based upon prior convictions
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000). Little was sentenced to life
imprisonment on each count of conviction, to run concurrently.
On appeal, counsel filed an Anders1 brief, in which he
states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests
that the district court erred in denying Little’s motion to
suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. Little has also
filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting several claims. We
affirm.
The legal conclusions underlying the denial of a motion
to suppress are reviewed de novo, while the predicate factual
conclusions are reviewed for clear error when assessed in the light
most favorable to the party prevailing below. Ornelas v. United
States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Hamlin, 319
F.3d 666, 671 (4th Cir. 2003). Courts reviewing a district court’s
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
ruling on a suppression motion are to consider the totality of the
circumstances of the particular detention “to see whether the
detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for
suspecting legal wrongdoing. This process allows officers to draw
on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences
from and deductions about the cumulative information available to
them that might well elude an untrained person.” United States v.
Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude
that the facts known to the officer, considered together, were
sufficient to “eliminate a substantial portion of innocent
travelers and, therefore amount to reasonable suspicion that
[Little] was engaged in drug trafficking.” United States v.
Foreman, 369 F.3d 776, 785 (4th Cir. 2004). The motion to suppress
was properly denied.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.2 We therefore affirm Little’s convictions and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Little, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Little requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
2
We have considered the claims asserted by Little in his pro
se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit.
- 3 -
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Little.
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
- 4 -