US v. Jonathan Maurice Ussery, No. 12-4928 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4928 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONATHAN MAURICE USSERY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00032-MR-DLH-1) Submitted: May 23, 2014 Decided: June 6, 2014 Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henderson Hill, Executive Director, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Ross H. Richardson, First Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan Maurice Ussery pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1) (2012), and was sentenced to seventy-nine months in prison. Ussery reserved the right to appeal the district court s denial of his motion to suppress the firearm recovered subsequent to a Terry stop. We affirm the judgment of the district court. When considering a district court s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review its factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1572 (2014). Where the district court has denied a motion to suppress, we construe the government. evidence in the light most favorable to the United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th Cir. 2013). Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may stop a person for investigative purposes when the officer has reasonable suspicion based criminal activity may be afoot. on articulable facts that United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 30). Whether there is reasonable suspicion to justify the stop depends on the Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 2 totality of the circumstances, including the information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of the stop. F.3d 243, 246 assessment Id. at 273-74; United States v. Foster, 634 (4th is a Cir. 2011). commonsensical The reasonable proposition, and suspicion deference should be accorded to police officers determinations based on their practical experience and training. United States v. Foreman, 369 F.3d 776, 782 (4th Cir. 2004). With these standards in mind, and having carefully reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing, the record, and the parties reasonable district suspicion court Accordingly, dispense briefs, we with contentions are to properly affirm oral we conclude initiate denied the Terry Ussery s district argument adequately a that in officers stop and motion to court s because presented the the the that the suppress. judgment. facts had We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
