United States v. Keith L. Richards

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Keith L. Richards

72 F.3d 130, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39787, 1995 WL 727948

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1995

Docket94-5935

StatusPublished

This text of 72 F.3d 130 (United States v. Keith L. Richards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Keith L. Richards, 72 F.3d 130, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39787, 1995 WL 727948 (6th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

72 F.3d 130
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Keith L. RICHARDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 94-5935.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 7, 1995.

Before: BOGGS and NORRIS, Circuit Judges; HACKETT, District Judge.*

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Keith L. Richards, appeals the denial by the district court of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of drug trafficking, conditioned upon his right to appeal the court's ruling.

The linchpin of defendant's appeal is his contention that police officers lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary for them to make the investigative stop that resulted in the officers' noticing crack cocaine on the ground, because if the investigative stop was valid, then the events that followed in its wake rendered the subsequent search of the vehicle valid. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court concluded that the officers were confronted with articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. We agree.

Because the reasoning that supports denial of the motion to suppress has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by the Honorable R. Allan Edgar in open court on October 8, 1992. Likewise, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

*

The Honorable Barbara K. Hackett, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

72 F.3d 130
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Keith L. RICHARDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 94-5935.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 7, 1995.

Before: BOGGS and NORRIS, Circuit Judges; HACKETT, District Judge.*

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Keith L. Richards, appeals the denial by the district court of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of drug trafficking, conditioned upon his right to appeal the court's ruling.

The linchpin of defendant's appeal is his contention that police officers lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary for them to make the investigative stop that resulted in the officers' noticing crack cocaine on the ground, because if the investigative stop was valid, then the events that followed in its wake rendered the subsequent search of the vehicle valid. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court concluded that the officers were confronted with articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. We agree.

Because the reasoning that supports denial of the motion to suppress has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by the Honorable R. Allan Edgar in open court on October 8, 1992. Likewise, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

*

The Honorable Barbara K. Hackett, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 F.3d 130, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39787, 1995 WL 727948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-keith-l-richards-ca6-1995.