Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 14-4026
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00019-FPS-JES-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Brian A. Behrens was convicted by a jury of being a
prohibited
person
in
possession
of
firearm,
18
U.S.C.
court
his
erred
in
denying
motions
for
new
trial
and
to
childhood
girlfriend.
of
the
son
of
Behrens
longtime
factual
findings
We
regarding
friend
review
the
motion
the
district
to
suppress
courts
for
clear
error,
and
the
684 F.3d 445, 452 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 490
(2012).
When
suppression
motion
has
been
denied
by
the
vehicle
cause
to
stop
believe
is
a
permissible
traffic
2
if
the
violation
officer
has
has
occurred,
suspicion
of
unlawful
conduct,
regardless
of
the
stop and subsequent pat down were unlawful based on the district
courts factual finding that the officers could not have seen
the
very
slight
[automobiles]
crack
in
the
windshield.
Id.
lower
at
right
172.
portion
In
of
the
reaching
that
district
court
credited
the
Here, by contrast,
Governments
version
of
the
expired
inspection
sticker
before
stopping
Behrens.
Therefore we find that the district court did not err in finding
that the traffic stop was valid.
Subsequent to a valid stop, an officer may conduct a
protective search of the passenger compartment of a lawfully
stopped
belief
automobile
based
on
where
specific
the
and
officer
possesses
articulable
3
facts
reasonable
which,
taken
together
with
the
rational
inferences
from
those
facts,
(4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049
(1983)).
We
find
that
the
evidence
supported
the
district
Accordingly,
on
Behrens
assertion
that
one
of
jurorsMichael
potential
bias
Keith was
against
him
based
on
prior
personal
have
been
Snyder
shared
given
this
the
opportunity
information
with
jury.
any
to
ascertain
other
member
whether
of
the
well
as
the
denial
of
post-trial
request
to
interview
United States v.
Bartko, 728 F.3d 327, 334 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v.
Gravely, 840 F.2d 1156, 1159 (4th Cir. 1988).
In order to obtain a new trial based on juror deceit
(either intentional or unintentional) a defendant must first
demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material
question . . . and then further show that a correct response
would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556
(2005).
biased,
In
addition,
regardless
of
showing
whether
that
the
juror
juror
was
was
actually
truthful
or
Jones
Moreover,
there
is
no
evidence
that
Snyders
relationship with Keiths son (or with Keith) was anything other
than congenial.
speculative,
find
we
no
abuse
of
discretion
by
the
district
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