United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 11, 2022 Decided August 12, 2022

No. 20-3081

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLEE

v.

AMISTAD DJIMON VENEY,

APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:19-cr-00302-1)

Lisa B. Wright, Assistant Federal Public Defender, argued 

the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was A.J. 

Kramer, Federal Public Defender. Tony Axam, Jr., Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, entered an appearance.

Eric Hansford, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause 

for appellee. With him on the brief were Chrisellen R. Kolb

and Suzanne Grealy Curt, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

Before: WILKINS and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and 

RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALKER. 
2

WALKER, Circuit Judge: Amistad Veney was convicted of 

unlawfully possessing a loaded firearm. He does not dispute 

that the bulge of that gun in his waistband gave an arresting 

officer the reasonable suspicion required to conduct a stop-andfrisk that uncovered the gun. But Veney argues he submitted 

to an illegal show of authority several seconds before then, 

when the officer did not yet have a close view of the bulge in 

Veney’s waistband. 

We disagree: Veney did not submit to a show of authority.

* * *

On an afternoon in September 2019, Officer Nelson Torres 

and three other police officers were on patrol in an unmarked 

car. When they came to the parking lot of an apartment 

complex in a high-crime area, Officer Torres observed 

Amistad Veney and another man exchange objects. After 

Veney looked towards the officers and walked in the opposite 

direction, three of the officers got out of their car, including 

Officer Torres, and walked towards Veney. Officer Torres was 

wearing a tactical vest that identified him as a police officer. 

At a fence corner, Veney stopped, and Officer Torres 

asked him, “Big man, you got nothing on you, man?” United 

States v. Veney, 444 F. Supp. 3d 56, 60 (D.D.C. 2020). 

Veney replied, “I ain’t got shit on me.” Id.

“You mind turning around for me?” asked Officer Torres. 

Id.
3

“I’m not, man,” said Veney, as he began to walk down the 

sidewalk, away from Officer Torres. “Nah, I’m going to walk 

off.” Id. 

According to Veney, Officer Torres then made a show of 

authority: “No,” said Officer Torres, as he trailed behind 

Veney. “I just want to make sure you don’t got no guns.” Id.

Veney continued down the sidewalk. At the same time, he 

swiveled his upper body back toward Officer Torres and lifted 

his arms away from his body. “I don’t got shit on me,” said 

Veney. Id.

According to Veney, by then, he had submitted to a show 

of authority and had thereby been seized.

After that, Officer Torres caught up with Veney and saw a 

bulge in his waistband. When Officer Torres asked what the 

bulge was, Veney said it was a belt. Officer Torres put his hand 

on Veney’s chest and said, “Ok, hold on, hold on.” Id. 

While another officer restrained Veney’s arms, Officer 

Torres patted down the area around Veney’s waistband. As he 

did so, he felt the outline of a gun. And upon lifting Veney’s 

shirt, he found a loaded, 9mm semi-automatic handgun. 

Veney was arrested and indicted for Unlawful Possession 

of a Firearm and Ammunition by a Person Convicted of a 

Crime Punishable by Imprisonment for a Term Exceeding One 

Year. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress the 

gun and ammunition, arguing that it was the fruit of an illegal 

seizure that occurred when he submitted to a show of authority 

by Officer Torres.
4

After hearing from Officer Torres and reviewing the 

evidence submitted by the parties, which included body-cam 

footage, the district court denied Veney’s motion. At a bench 

trial, it found Veney guilty and sentenced him to one year and 

three months in prison, followed by two years of supervised 

release.

Veney appeals, and we affirm.

* * *

“For purposes of the Fourth Amendment a seizure occurs 

when physical force is used to restrain movement or when a 

person submits to an officer’s show of authority.” United 

States v. Brodie, 742 F.3d 1058, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (cleaned 

up). “A show of authority sufficient to constitute a seizure 

occurs where the police conduct would have communicated to 

a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the 

police presence and go about his business, or, put another way, 

where a reasonable person would have believed that he was not 

free to leave.” United States v. Delaney, 955 F.3d 1077, 1081

(D.C. Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). Veney bears the burden of 

showing his submission to a show of authority, and we decide 

de novo whether he has met that burden. Id.

The government does not appeal the district court’s 

finding that Officer Torres made a show of authority through 

his answer — “No. I just want to make sure you don’t got no 

guns.” — to Veney’s declaration that he was “going to walk 

off.” Veney, 444 F. Supp. 3d at 60, 62-63. So the question is 

whether Veney submitted when he responded to that statement 

by Officer Torres. 

In Veney’s own description of his response, he “continued 

moving forward but turned his head to face and respond to 
5

Officer Torres, swiveled his body towards him, brought his 

arms out away from his body, and said ‘I don’t got shit on me.’” 

Appellant Opening Br. at 14-15. 

Veney has not described submission to a show of 

authority. Because Officer Torres’s statement (“No.”) 

followed Veney’s declaration that he was “going to walk off,” 

Veney could not submit while he “continued moving forward.” 

One cannot submit to an order not to “walk off” by walking

off.

Veney argues that he was not actually walking away from 

Officer Torres when he “continued moving forward.” That 

might make sense if Officer Torres had been in front of Veney. 

Officer Torres was, however, several steps behind him. So 

when Veney “continued moving forward,” Veney was walking 

away.

Veney says he slowed his pace before Officer Torres 

blocked his path. After reviewing video footage, the district 

court found otherwise. But we need not resolve this factual 

dispute. When a moviegoer is leaving a theater, he does not 

stop leaving the theater simply because he slows the pace of 

his exit.1

1 To be clear, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear 

error. United States v. Mabry, 997 F.3d 1239, 1243 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 

But we need not resolve any factual disputes in this case because 

even assuming the truth of the historical facts alleged by 

Veney — such as his claim that he slowed his pace — his alleged 

facts do not demonstrate submission to a show of authority. And we 

decline to find clear error when the video evidence appears 

consistent with the district court’s factual findings. See United States 

v. Garcia-Garcia, 957 F.3d 887, 896 (8th Cir. 2020). 
6

Finally, Veney claims that when a police officer orders a 

suspect to turn around, the suspect submits when he turns 

around. But there is more to the story here. When Veney 

declared an intent to “walk away,” Officer Torres replied, 

“No.” He thereby left no doubt that in addition to wanting 

Veney to turn around — which he had requested earlier — he 

also wanted Veney not to walk away. And in that context, a 

subsequent statement like “I just want to make sure you don’t 

got no guns” is best understood as explaining why an officer

wants a suspect to halt, not as inviting a suspect to momentarily 

swivel his body while he continues to walk away.

Moreover, even when a show of authority does not 

expressly prohibit flight, it can do so implicitly. For example, 

the police likely do not want someone to run away with his 

hands in the air after they yell, “Put your hands up!” Perhaps 

that is why Veney has failed to identify any circuit case in 

which a suspect submitted to a show of authority while walking 

away from the police.2

2 Cf. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 262 (2007) (submission 

when a passenger stayed inside a car pulled over by the police); 

Mabry, 997 F.3d at 1246 (in response to requests to look inside a 

suspect’s bag, the suspect submitted to authority by “not leaving

though he clearly wanted to” (emphasis added)); Delaney, 955 F.3d 

at 1085 (submission when the driver stayed inside a parked car in a 

parking lot); United States v. Castle, 825 F.3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 

2016) (submission to an officer’s show of authority by a suspect 

walking toward another officer and “not trying to go anywhere”

(cleaned up) (emphasis added)); Brodie, 742 F.3d at 1061

(submission when a pedestrian stopped walking and put his hands on 

a nearby car in response to a police order to put his hands on the car).
7

* * *

At no point did Veney voluntarily submit to a show of 

authority. He therefore was not seized until Officer Torres 

blocked his path. By then, Officer Torres could see the bulge 

of Veney’s gun in his waistband, and Veney does not dispute 

that the bulge gave Officer Torres the reasonable suspicion 

required for the stop and frisk that followed. See Terry v. Ohio, 

392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968).

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

So ordered.