UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4454

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MALIK X. SHAKUR, a/k/a Malik X. Shakur, a/k/a Willie Lamb,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:08-cr-00485-CMC-2)

Submitted: August 30, 2010 Decided: September 9, 2010

Before KING, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Yurachek, THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK ALLEN YURACHEK, LLC, 

Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United 

States Attorney, Nancy C. Wicker, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Malik X. Shakur was convicted of one count of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, 

cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(D); 846 (2006) and one count of possession 

with intent to distribute crack cocaine, cocaine and marijuana, 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(D); 2 

(2006). On appeal, Shakur claims the district court erred 

denying his motion to suppress evidence and denying his motion 

to excuse a juror. He also claims the court erred by finding he 

was subjected to an enhanced statutory sentence based on the 

Government’s notice filed under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006). Finding 

no error, we affirm.

In reviewing the district court’s ruling on a motion 

to suppress, this court reviews 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, Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996), 
3

or has a reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, Terry v. 

Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-22 (1968). 

Under Terry, an officer may, consistent with the 

Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the 

officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal 

activity is afoot. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 

(2000). To conduct a Terry stop, there must be at least a

minimal level of objective justification for making the stop. 

Id. Reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch but less 

than probable cause and may be based on the collective knowledge 

of officers involved in an investigation. Id.; see also United 

States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 232 (1985). In evaluating 

police conduct in a Terry stop, courts must consider the 

totality of the circumstances, see United States v. Sokolow, 490 

U.S. 1, 8 (1989), including all information available to an 

officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of 

the decision to stop a suspect. United States v. Crittendon, 

883 F.2d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 1989).

We conclude the district court properly found that the 

police had sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle 

in which Shakur was a passenger. We do not agree with Shakur’s 

assessment that the testimony provided by several members of law 

enforcement was collectedly unreliable. The tip provided by the 

informant was sufficiently corroborated by law enforcement. See
4

United States v. White, 549 F.3d 946, 952 (4th Cir. 2008). We 

also conclude there was nothing inconsistent with the testimony 

from two police officers who both claimed to see the marijuana 

in plain view, one through the van’s open side window and the 

other after opening the rear doors to the van out of concern for 

his safety. See United States v. Stanfield, 109 F.3d 976, 981-

98 (4th Cir. 1997). Clearly, the marijuana was properly seized 

after being observed in plain view. See United States v. 

Williams, 592 F.3d 511, 521 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating plain view 

doctrine); Boone v. Spurgess, 385 F.3d 923, 927-28 (6th Cir. 

2004) (applying plain view doctrine to warrantless seizure of 

evidence seen through a parked car’s window). We also conclude 

that Shakur’s brief detention and the search of his pockets did 

not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. See United States v. 

Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1109 (4th Cir. 1995). In any event, after 

the marijuana was found by the other police officers, the 

cocaine on Shakur’s person would have been inevitably discovered 

as a search incident to an arrest. United States v. Allen, 159 

F.3d 832, 838, 841 (4th Cir. 1998). In addition, we conclude 

the search of the van was appropriate after Shakur was arrested. 

See Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 (2009) (noting that a 

search of a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest is appropriate 

when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime 

of arrest might be found in the vehicle.). Accordingly, we 
5

conclude the district court did not err denying Shakur’s motion 

to suppress evidence.

We conclude the district court did not abuse its 

discretion denying Shakur’s motion to excuse a juror for cause. 

See Poynter v. Ratcliff, 874 F.2d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 1989). 

After questioning by the court, there was no indication of 

actual bias or of an extreme situation warranting removal. See

United States v. Turner, 389 F.3d 111, 117 (4th Cir. 2004).

We also conclude there was no error in the statutorily 

enhanced sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Clearly, each 

of the convictions listed by the Government in the 21 U.S.C. 

§ 851 (2006) notice was a qualifying conviction.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence. 

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