Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-4881
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:12-cr-00016-JPB-JSK-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
August 6, 2013
PER CURIAM:
Winston Irons appeals his convictions for possession
with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of
21
U.S.C.
841(a)(1)
(2006).
On
appeal,
he
challenges
the
We affirm.
In reviewing the
findings
for
clear
error[]
and
the
legal
at
534.
We
defer
to
the
district
courts
credibility
afoot.
(citing
Terry
Illinois
v.
Ohio,
v.
Wardlow,
392
U.S.
2
528
1,
30
U.S.
119,
(1968)).
123
(2000)
Reasonable
suspicion
requires
an
officer
to
have
particularized
and
In
suspicion,
we
must
ensure
that
the
tip
possesses
363 F.3d 317, 323 (4th Cir. 2004); see Griffin, 589 F.3d at 152
(discussing
factors
courts
consider
in
determining
whether
review
of
the
record
on
appeal
leads
us
to
conclude that the officer to whom the informant reported the tip
had
objective
reason
to
believe
that
[the]
tip
had
some
Perkins, 363
learned that Irons had a revoked drivers license, and Irons was
observed
driving
car
without
valid
license
along
the
Thus, we conclude
that the stop did not violate Irons Fourth Amendment rights.
See Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123.
Irons next asserts that the district court erred by
admitting evidence of his prior bad acts in 2006 and 2008.
He
motive,
opportunity,
intent,
preparation,
plan,
to
determine
admissibility).
We
review
the
district
Id. at 395.
Although Irons
suggests that the prior bad acts are not relevant due to the
lapse of time between those acts and the instant offenses, we
conclude that the acts are not too remote to render the evidence
4
437
(4th
twenty-two
Cir.
years
2007)
prior
(holding
was
that
admissible
conviction
because
occurring
similarities
United
States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190, 204 (4th Cir. 2012).
Thus,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
challenged evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED