UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4559

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRY DWAYNE JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:22-cr-00137-1)

Submitted: April 30, 2024 Decided: May 7, 2024

Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate 

Counsel, Rachel E. Zimarowski, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. William S. 

Thompson, United States Attorney, Brian D. Parsons, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4559 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/07/2024 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Dwayne Jones pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or 

more of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Jones expressly conditioned the 

plea on his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. The 

court sentenced Jones to 57 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Jones challenges the 

district court’s denial of his motion to suppress arguing that the police officer who stopped 

Jones for speeding did not have probable cause, so the evidence found during the 

subsequent search of Jones’ car was inadmissible. (Appellant’s Br. (ECF No. 10) at 6). 

Finding no error, we affirm.

When considering a district court’s denial of a suppression motion, we “review legal 

conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error [and] . . . consider the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the Government.” United States v. Pulley, 987 F.3d 370, 376 

(4th Cir. 2021) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing factual 

findings for clear error, we particularly defer to a district court’s credibility determinations,

for it is the role of the district court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during 

a pre-trial motion to suppress.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the clear 

error standard, factual findings by the district court may be reversed only if this Court “is 

left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States 

v. Sowards, 690 F.3d 583, 587 (4th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up).

Jones argues that the district court erred in finding that the police officer had 

probable cause to stop Jones’ vehicle for speeding. Specifically, he contends that the court 

erred in finding that the officer’s pacing method was a reliable indicator of Jones’ speed. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4559 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/07/2024 Pg: 2 of 4
3

“A traffic stop constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and is thus subject to a 

reasonableness requirement.” United States v. Perez, 30 F.4th 369, 374 (4th Cir. 2022) 

(cleaned up). “As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where 

the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” Whren v. 

United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996). Probable cause exists if the officer “had 

reasonably trustworthy information . . . sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing 

that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 

89, 91 (1964). “When an officer observes a traffic offense—however minor—he has 

probable cause to stop the driver of the vehicle.” United States v. Williams, 740 F.3d 308, 

312 (4th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up), abrogated on other grounds, Hein v. North Carolina, 574 

U.S. 54 (2014).

In Sowards, we determined that an officer’s visual estimation that a vehicle is 

traveling slightly above the legal speed limit “requires additional indicia of reliability to 

support probable cause.” 690 F.3d at 592. The reasonableness of the officer’s visual 

estimate may be supported by pacing methods. Id. Here, the officer observed that Jones’

vehicle appeared to be traveling above the legal speed limit, and the officer paced the 

vehicle for several miles. The district court determined that the officer’s speed-gauging 

methods were reliable. We conclude that this determination was not clearly erroneous and 

that the court therefore did not err in denying Jones’ motion to suppress on the ground that 

the officer had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4559 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/07/2024 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4559 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/07/2024 Pg: 4 of 4