The opinion
Case: 24-50126 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2025
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
February 14, 2025
No. 24-50126
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jameel Alexander Brown,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:21-CR-193-1
______________________________
Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jameel Alexander Brown was sentenced to 52 months of
imprisonment after pleading guilty to theft of mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1708; and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he contends that the district court erred
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-50126 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2025
No. 24-50126
in denying his motion to suppress, arguing that the responding officer lacked
reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the
district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for
clear error. United States v. Alkheqani, 78 F.4th 707, 715 (5th Cir. 2023).
Whether an officer had reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop is a
question of law that is reviewed de novo. United States v. Alvarez, 40 F.4th
339, 344 (5th Cir. 2022). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party—here, the Government. See Alkheqani, 78 F.4th at
715. The district court’s ruling will be upheld “if there is any reasonable view
of the evidence to support it.” Alvarez, 40 F.4th at 344 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). However, “where testimony conflicts with
video evidence, our court must view the facts in the light depicted by the
videotape.” United States v. Wright, 57 F.4th 524, 530 (5th Cir. 2023)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Brown argues that the responding officer lacked reasonable suspicion
of illegal activity because the officer could not tell whether Brown met the
suspect’s physical description when the officer activated his patrol vehicle’s
overhead lights. The record reflects that a witness called 911 and reported
that he observed a man breaking into residential mailboxes near his home,
described the man’s appearance, and noted that the perpetrator was driving
a four-door sedan. Shortly after the crime was reported, the responding
officer saw Brown, a man matching the witness’s description, tampering with
a block of mailboxes approximately two blocks away from where the witness
had reported seeing the perpetrator. The officer also observed that a four-
door sedan was parked nearby with its engine running. While Brown
contends that the responding officer’s testimony is contradicted by video
evidence, the video does not conflict with the testimony. Because a
reasonable view of the evidence supports the district court’s finding that the
2
Case: 24-50126 Document: 71-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/14/2025
No. 24-50126
responding officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Brown, the district
court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. See Alkheqani, 78 F.4th
at 715.
AFFIRMED.
3