Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20330/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20330-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melvin Marquise Stewart
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20330

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MELVIN MARQUISE STEWART,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-507-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In accordance with an agreement that preserved his right to appeal the 

denial of his motion to suppress, Melvin Marquise Stewart pleaded guilty to 

being a felon in possession of a firearm. In the motion, Stewart moved to 

suppress a firearm and ammunition found in the car he was driving, arguing 

that police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him under the 

circumstances. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20330 Document: 00515293477 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
No. 19-20330

2

When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review 

factual findings for clear error and the ultimate constitutionality of law 

enforcement’s action de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 

(1996); United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 2010). In addition to 

deferring to the district court’s factual findings made on the basis of live 

testimony, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prevailing party. United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005).

The totality of the circumstances, see United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 

266, 273 (2002), surrounding the stop indicate that the officers had a

“reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity [was] underfoot” when 

they stopped Stewart for questioning. United States v. Jordan, 232 F.3d 447, 

448 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)). Stewart was 

observed carrying a gun in a convenience store in a high crime area in the 

middle of the night. See United States v. Hill, 752 F.3d 1029, 1035 (5th Cir. 

2014). In addition, the officers detected the smell of marijuana in the area of 

Stewart’s car, and the smell grew stronger as they approached the vehicle and 

he exited it. See United States v. Casteneda, 951 F.2d 44, 47-49 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Accordingly, the officers were justified in detaining Stewart and further 

investigating the gun and marijuana odor. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 30. In light 

of this ruling, we do not address Stewart’s related argument that the gun and 

ammunition found in his car should be suppressed as the result of an illegal 

seizure. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 19-20330 Document: 00515293477 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020