Court Opinion

ID: 9905681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 21:00:47.213792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:51.317092
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4704      Doc: 28         Filed: 11/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 6

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4704

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TRAQUAN MALIK HENDERSON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cr-00134-HEH-1)

        Submitted: October 20, 2023                                 Decided: November 28, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate
        Attorney, John S. Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
        PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States
        Attorney, Kenneth R. Simon, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4704       Doc: 28         Filed: 11/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               Traquan Malik Henderson appeals his conviction entered pursuant to his guilty plea

        to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, he challenges the denial of his

        motion to suppress the firearm seized from him during an investigative stop. We affirm.

               In reviewing the district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the

        district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its legal determinations de novo. United

        States v. Cain, 524 F.3d 477, 481 (4th Cir. 2008). The facts are reviewed in the light most

        favorable to the prevailing party below. United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 628 (4th

        Cir. 2007).

               An officer may conduct an investigatory detention or seizure only where the officer

        has “reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be

        afoot.’” United States v. Burton, 228 F.3d 524, 527 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting United

        States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). Reasonable suspicion requires more than an

        “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’”; however, reasonable suspicion may

        be based on inferences made on the basis of police experience. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1,

        27 (1968). When reviewing the constitutionality of an investigatory stop, we consider

        whether the totality of the circumstances gave the officer a “particularized and objective

        basis for suspecting a legal wrongdoing.” United States v. Mayo, 361 F.3d 802, 805 (4th

        Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4704      Doc: 28         Filed: 11/28/2023     Pg: 3 of 6

              Here, Officer Moses Railey detained Henderson and recovered the gun, an attached

        extended magazine, 1 and a separate standard magazine when he saw Henderson walking

        down the street towards him. We find that Railey had reasonable suspicion that Henderson

        was carrying a concealed weapon and/or a weapon with an extended magazine in violation

        of Virginia law. See United States v. Black, 525 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2008) (reasonable

        suspicion that weapon was concealed in pocket in Virginia tantamount to reasonable

        suspicion of criminal activity); Mayo, 361 F.3d at 807-08 (same).         This reasonable

        suspicion arose from the following circumstances that either the district court credited

        based on Railey’s testimony, were undisputed at the hearing, or are commonsense

        conclusions: 2 (1) an extended magazine was clearly visible in Henderson’s waistband; (2) a

              1
                We use the term “extended magazine” to mean a magazine longer than a usual
        magazine. However, we recognize that, under Virginia law, the length of the magazine is
        not determinative. Instead, the relevant factor is how many rounds of ammunition the
        magazine holds. See Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-287.4 (prohibiting, subject to exception,
        possession of certain loaded firearms equipped with a magazine that will hold more than
        20 rounds of ammunition) Nonetheless, because a longer magazine can hold more of the
        same type of ammunition than a shorter magazine, the length of the magazine is a factor to
        be considered regarding reasonable suspicion.
              2
                 Even though we review the district court’s legal determination of reasonable
        suspicion de novo, “due weight” must be given to the “inferences drawn from th[e] facts
        by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.” Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S.
        690, 699 (1996). The district court’s “commonsense” conclusions based on “the distinctive
        features and events of the community” and Railey’s experience and expertise “provide a
        context” for the inferences drawn and “deserve deference.” Id. at 695, 699-700 (noting
        that the district court’s assessment can be properly based on “background facts” that are
        not themselves the “subject of explicit findings”).

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4704      Doc: 28          Filed: 11/28/2023     Pg: 4 of 6

        small portion of the butt of a pistol appeared to be attached to the magazine; 3 (3) Henderson

        attempted to hide the magazine by pushing it into his pants and keeping his hand on it;

        (4) the “cant” of the magazine and the way it responded to Henderson’s attempt to push it

        into his pants were indicative of the magazine being attached to a firearm; (5) the officer’s

        experience with the particular gun in question, Virginia firearm offenses, and the specific

        high-crime area gave him insight into how those violating Virginia firearm laws generally

        behaved; (6) those legally carrying do not generally attempt to hide a firearm; (7) standard

        magazines are less likely to extend past the butt of firearm; (8) magazines are generally not

        carried in the waistband, unless they are attached to a firearm; and (9) Henderson was in

        an area known specifically for gun violence.

               Henderson first argues that Railey’s “essentially instantaneous decision” resulted in

        a “knee-jerk response” that did not permit “the critical thinking necessary to separate

        innocent pedestrians from suspicious ones.” (Appellant’s Br. (ECF No. 16) at 26-27).

        However, Henderson cites to no bright line rule regarding the amount of time required to

        develop reasonable suspicion. Moreover, we have found that reasonable suspicion existed

        in a case where police seized a person suspected of trespassing “five to ten seconds” after

        seeing him. United States v. Bumpers, 705 F.3d 168, 170 (4th Cir. 2013).

               3
                 The district court noted that Railey did not mention seeing any part of the firearm
        in his related state court testimony and ruled that its decision would be the same even if
        Railey had not seen the firearm. While Henderson contends that the district court did not
        make a factual finding that Railey saw part of the firearm, the court’s order makes it clear
        that the court made a factual finding that Railey saw what appeared to be a small portion
        of a firearm. (See J.A. 191 (“the relevant facts are as follows”)).

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4704       Doc: 28          Filed: 11/28/2023      Pg: 5 of 6

               Henderson next argues that we should consider Railey’s changing story regarding

        whether he saw a firearm in Henderson’s waistband. Specifically, in state court, Railey

        stated that he saw a magazine without mentioning whether he saw a part of the firearm or

        not. He also averred that he did not see the outline of a firearm. Conversely, in federal

        court, Railey testified that he saw a “small corner” of the butt of the firearm. (J.A. 126-27).

        Even assuming that these statements are in direct conflict, we find that court’s decision to

        credit Railey’s testimony at the federal hearing was not clearly erroneous, and we,

        therefore, defer to the district court’s credibility determination. See United States v. Pulley,

        987 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that this court may not reverse the district

        court’s finding of fact simply because it would have found differently); see also United

        States v. Holly, 983 F.3d 361, 363-64 (8th Cir. 2020) (noting that credibility determinations

        are “virtually unreviewable on appeal” and cannot be overturned absent finding that

        testimony is “so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable fact-

        finder would not credit it”).

               Henderson also relies on this court’s recent decision in United States v. Peters, 60

        F.4th 855 (4th Cir. 2023). Peters was walking down a sidewalk with another man, when

        officers approached them, accused them of trespass, and requested that they lift their shirts

        to show that they were unarmed. Peters was seized when he refused to do so. Id. at 859.

        The officer testified that he stopped Peters to investigate trespass based solely on Peters’

        earlier arrest for trespass. Id. at 864. We determined that a prior trespass arrest alone could

        not satisfy reasonable suspicion, and the fact that a confidential informant provided an

        unverified tip that Peters sold drugs in a building near which he was stopped did not

                                                       5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4704      Doc: 28         Filed: 11/28/2023      Pg: 6 of 6

        significantly elevate the officer’s suspicion. Id. at 866. We ruled that the officer’s

        suspicion that Peters was armed was improperly based on Peters’ “skinny jeans” (known

        to be worn in order to “wedge” a firearm in the waistband), Peters’ refusal to lift his shirt

        when requested to do so, and Peters’ presence in a public housing community. Id. at 868.

               We find that the cases are distinguishable on material bases. Most importantly, here,

        Railey saw an extended magazine clearly visible in Henderson’s waistband. In addition,

        the officer saw a small portion of the butt of a firearm, and the angle of the magazine

        indicated that it was attached to a firearm. Further, after seeing the officers, Henderson

        attempted to hide the magazine from the officers’ view. Finally, the officer testified that,

        based on his experience, those legally carrying firearms do not carry unattached magazines

        in their waistbands and do not attempt to hide their firearms. These additional factors,

        which when considered together are significant, were not present in Peters, where the

        officer did not see any physical indicia that Peters was concealing a firearm.

               Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. 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

                                                     6