United States v. Robinson

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 5, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30998
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL WAYNE ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CR-20048-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Wayne Robinson (“Robinson”) appeals his conditional
guilty-plea conviction of felon in possession of a firearm. He
argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress because the police officer who arrested him did not have
reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. Robinson
contends that the police officer precipitated his rapid departure
from the street corner where he had been standing because the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-30998
-2-
officer drove up in a vehicle that had its headlights off despite
the fact that it was 1:00 a.m.
The police officer who stopped Robinson was driving a marked
patrol car in an area with street lights. The officer indicated
that, once he turned onto the street where Robinson was standing,
the person to whom Robinson had been talking ran away and Robinson
began to walk away at a very rapid pace. The officer testified
that this incident occurred in a residential area that had a very
high rate of car burglaries and thefts, and that he thought that
the two men fled because they had committed a crime. Having
considered the totality of the circumstances and reviewed the
evidence in a light most favorable to the government as the
prevailing party, we hold that the investigatory stop of Robinson
did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the district court
did not err in denying the motion to suppress. See Illinois v.
Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25, 126-27 (2000); United States v.
Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --