US v. Julius Brown, No. 13-4307 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4307 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JULIUS B. BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (8:12-cr-00525-GLR-1) Submitted: September 11, 2013 Decided: September 16, 2013 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hughie D. Hunt, II, KEMET & HUNT, LLC, College Park, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jane F. Nathan, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Julius B. Brown appeals from his conviction and sentence of twelve months of probation and a $430.00 fine for driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) (2013), and improper use of a cell phone, in violation Supp. 2012), judge. his of Md. Code Ann., following his Transp. bench § 21-1124.2 trial before (LexisNexis a magistrate Brown argues that the magistrate judge erred in denying motion traffic to stop. suppress The the fruits Government of contends his seizure that we during should a not consider the issue because Brown did not timely brief his appeal to the district court under D. Md. Loc. R. 302. 3402 (2006); Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g). 18 U.S.C. § Although we assume for the sake of this appeal that Brown s failure to comply with the district court s local rules forfeited, rather than waived, the issue of his seizure s legality, we nonetheless affirm. In a criminal case, forfeited issues are reviewed for plain error. (1993). United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-34 To establish plain error, Brown must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Muhammad, Even if Brown satisfies these requirements, however, we retain discretion to correct the error, which we will not exercise unless the error seriously 2 affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. omitted). Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration if they Brown fails to meet this high standard. Officers may make a traffic stop have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a driver has committed a traffic violation. United States v. McBride, 676 F.3d 385, 391- 92 (4th Cir. 2012). A reasonable suspicion is demonstrated when an officer is able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, evince suspicion or more hunch than of an inchoate criminal and activity. unparticularized United States v. Ortiz, 669 F.3d 439, 444 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the magistrate judge did not err, much less plainly so, in finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Brown and investigate whether the cause of his erratic driving might be intoxication. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Brown s motion to suppress. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
