UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4657

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DELVONTE E. HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cr-00018-REP-1)

Submitted: August 2, 2023 Decided: August 11, 2023

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Reginald M. Barley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, 

United States Attorney, Stephen E. Anthony, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4657 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/11/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Delvonte E. Harris entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession 

of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Harris argues that the district 

court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized following a pat down search 

of his person. We affirm.

“When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review factual 

findings for clear error and legal determinations de novo,” “constru[ing] the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” United States v. Lull, 824 F.3d 109, 114-

15 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “An officer may stop and briefly 

detain a person when the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person has 

been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Coleman, 18 F.4th 

131, 136 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Montieth, 662 F.3d 660, 665 (4th Cir. 

2011)). “To establish reasonable suspicion, an officer must have a minimal level of 

objective justification, meaning that [he] must be able to articulate more than an inchoate 

and unparticularized suspicion or hunch of criminal activity.” United States v. Gist-Davis, 

41 F.4th 259, 264 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Once an officer 

performs a valid stop, “[he] may conduct a protective frisk of the person for weapons,” if 

the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person stopped “may be armed and presently 

dangerous.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4657 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

Courts assess the legality of a Terry1 stop and frisk under “the totality of the 

circumstances, ‘giving due weight to common sense judgments reached by officers in light 

of their experience and training.’” Gist-Davis, 41 F.4th at 264 (quoting United States v. 

Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 321 (4th Cir. 2004)). “Judicial review of the evidence offered to 

demonstrate reasonable suspicion must be commonsensical, focused on the evidence as a 

whole, and cognizant of both context and the particular experience of officers charged with 

the ongoing tasks of law enforcement.” United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 337 (4th 

Cir. 2008). “[M]ultiple factors may be taken together to create a reasonable suspicion even 

where each factor, taken alone, would be insufficient.” United States v. George, 732 F.3d 

296, 300 (4th Cir. 2013).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in 

holding that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Harris had driven under the influence 

of alcohol or drugs. And because there is an “indisputable nexus between drugs and guns,” 

the district court also correctly concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion that 

Harris was armed and dangerous. See United States v. Sakyi, 160 F.3d 164, 169 (4th Cir. 

1998); see United States v. Rooks, 596 F.3d 204, 210 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n officer who 

has reasonable suspicion to believe that a vehicle contains illegal drugs may order its 

occupant[] out of the vehicle and pat [him] down for weapons.”). Therefore, the officers’ 

pat down search of Harris was valid under the Fourth Amendment.

1 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4657 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/11/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment.2

 We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2 The district court also found that the officers’ conduct was justified under the 

emergency aid exception, and the parties raise arguments related to that exception on 

appeal. Because we conclude that the officers performed a lawful stop and pat down based 

on reasonable suspicion, we do not reach the emergency aid exception.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4657 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/11/2023 Pg: 4 of 4