Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jason DANIELL, Defendant, Jamar Johnson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-08
Citations: 99 F. App'x 349
Docket Number: No. 03-1501
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jason DANIELL, Defendant, Jamar Johnson, Defendant-Appellant,
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 99
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jason DANIELL, Defendant, Jamar Johnson, Defendant-Appellant,
No. 03-1501.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 8, 2004.
Scott J. Porter, Seneca Falls, NY, for Appellant.
David M. Grable, Assistant United States Attorney (Robert P. Storch, on the brief) for Glenn T. Suddaby, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Albany, NY, for Appellee.
Present: Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, and Hon. J. GARVAN MURTHA, District Judge.
The Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Jamar Johnson appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, J.), challenging the district court's finding that the police possessed reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle driven by defendant-appellant.
The district court denied defendant-appellant's pretrial motions, including his motions to suppress based on the alleged unconstitutionally of the car stop. Mr. Johnson pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to the one count against him in the indictment. He was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of 84 months imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. At no time in any of the proceedings did the defendant-appellant reserve the right to appeal from the denial of the defendant's suppression motion. Mr. Johnson's guilty plea waived his right to object to the constitutionality of the vehicle stop. See, e.g., United States v. Arango, 966 F.2d 64, 66 (2d Cir.1992). Moreover, having reviewed the proceedings and the arguments made on appeal, we find no error in the court's determination that the vehicle stop was justified.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.