UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 21-3856 │ v. │ │ JOSEPH STEVENSON, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 1:21-cr-00184-1—James S. Gwin, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: August 9, 2022

Before: SILER, McKEAGUE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Michael J. O’Shea, LIPON O’SHEA LEGAL GROUP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Vanessa V. Healy, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION _________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. Joseph Stevenson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. No. 21-3856 United States v. Stevenson Page 2

I.

Police officer Joshua Mason saw Stevenson leave the parking lot of an apartment complex and drive toward the driveway. At the driveway opening, there is one sidewalk running perpendicularly to either side. The sidewalks do not connect across the driveway but instead run in opposite directions. The driveway continues a few more feet and perpendicularly connects to a street. Mason watched Stevenson drive onto the driveway opening—between the sidewalks— without stopping. Stevenson continued a few more feet and stopped at the end of the driveway. After a brief pause, he turned left onto the street.

Mason followed Stevenson and pulled him over for violating Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.431(A). That statute requires drivers to stop before driving onto a “sidewalk area extending across the . . . driveway[.]” Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.431(A). As he approached the passenger’s side of Stevenson’s car, Mason smelled raw marijuana, and Stevenson readily admitted there was marijuana in the car. Mason directed Stevenson to get out of the car and, right away, found marijuana in the driver-side door. Mason continued to search Stevenson’s car and discovered a gun in the glove compartment.

Stevenson was subsequently indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and being an indicted person in possession of a firearm. Stevenson moved to suppress the evidence of the gun, but the district court denied the motion. So Stevenson entered a conditional plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and now appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress.

II.

We employ a mixed review standard to a district court’s order denying a motion to suppress. United States v. May-Shaw, 955 F.3d 563, 566 (6th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2763 (2021). Factual findings are reviewed for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. Id. We view the testimony presented at the suppression hearing “in the light most favorable to the district court’s conclusions.” Id. (citing United States v. McCraney, 674 F.3d 614, 616–17 (6th Cir. 2012)). We may affirm the district court’s decision on any gro