
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James CLINTON, a/k/a Joker, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4118.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 24, 2001.
    Decided Sept. 17, 2001.
    Scott A. Curnutte, Curnutte Law Office, Elkins, WV, for appellant. Patrick M. Flatley, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, WV, for appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

James Clinton pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), but reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress drugs seized during his arrest. On appeal, Clinton argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the police stop of his vehicle that resulted in his arrest was based on an anonymous tip that lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.

“[T]he police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,’ even if the officer lacks probable cause.” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Clinton contends that, in light of Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000), an anonymous tip received by facsimile from an agency in another state did not provide reasonable suspicion for the stop of his vehicle.

We disagree. Contrary to Clinton’s assertions, J.L. is not controlling. Our review of the record convinces us that the district court correctly concluded that the stop of Clinton’s vehicle was based upon abundant information independent of the anonymous tip. The motion to suppress was properly denied.

Accordingly, we affirm Clinton’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  