Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Randolph THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-22
Citations: 139 F. App'x 348
Docket Number: Docket No. 04-5760-CR
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Randolph THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: JACOBS, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, and HURD, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Randolph THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 04-5760-CR.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 22, 2005.
Edward S. Zas, The Legal Aid Society, Federal Defender Division, Appeals Bureau, New York, NY, for Appellant.
Scott L. Marrah, Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, New York, N.Y. (Katherine Polk Failla, on the brief), on behalf of David N. Kelley, United States Attorney, for Appellee.
PRESENT: JACOBS, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, and HURD, District Judge.
The Honorable David N. Hurd, United States District Judge for the Northern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant Randolph Thomas appeals from a judgment entered on October 28, 2004 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.), convicting Thomas of possessing a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and sentencing him to 24 months' imprisonment, three years' supervised release, and a mandatory $100 special assessment. We assume familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
The district court properly denied Thomas's suppression motion (and made sufficient findings in support of its decision). See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (outer-clothing search valid where police officer "observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience . that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous").
Thomas is entitled to a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005).
We have considered Thomas's remaining arguments and find each of them to be without merit. The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED, and this case is REMANDED pursuant to United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005).