Case ID: f-appx_394/html/0983-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Albert Lopez WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-4733.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 10, 2010.
    Decided: Sept. 10, 2010.
    A. Wayne Harrison, Sr., Law Offices of A. Wayne Harrison, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albert Lopez Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized following a North Carolina police officer’s stop of Williams’s vehicle on suspicion that Williams violated N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20-63(g) (2009), prohibiting the willful covering of any part of a registration plate. On appeal, Williams contends that the district court erred in finding that the stop was reasonable. We affirm.

In reviewing the district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its legal determinations de novo. United States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481 (4th Cir.2008). The facts are reviewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 628 (4th Cir.2007). A vehicle stop constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and is permissible if the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred, Wharen v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), or has a reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), regardless of the officer’s subjective motivations, Whren, 517 U.S. at 810, 813-19, 116 S.Ct. 1769.

After reviewing the record, we hold that the district court’s denial of Williams’s motion to suppress was not in error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.