Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David P. CARRIER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-18
Citations: 71 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 03-4048
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David P. CARRIER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David P. CARRIER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-4048.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 23, 2003.
Decided Aug. 18, 2003.
Frank R. Jones, Sasscer, Clagett & Bucher, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Hollis Raphael Weisman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David P. Carrier was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol by a magistrate judge and his conviction was affirmed on appeal by the district court. On appeal to this court he raises one issue: whether the magistrate judge should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence gathered following the investigative stop of his vehicle. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Viewing the evidence as required, see United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998), we find that the magistrate judge, and district court on appeal, properly found that the involved officer had a reasonable suspicion that Carrier was driving under the influence of alcohol when she stopped him. See United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992) (giving review standard). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.