United States v. Oakley, 080411 FED4, 10-4974
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICKEY OAKLEY, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||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.|
|Judge Panel:||Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||August 04, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Submitted: June 30, 2011.
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)
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP