Pannell

MEMORANDUM **

1. At oral argument, the United States agreed that Count II of Pannell’s conviction, for possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), is a potentially lesser included offense of Count III, for employing a juvenile to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 861 (a)(1). Accordingly, we vacate Count II of the conviction.

2. We conclude that the border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop Pannell’s vehicle. A law enforcement officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop when he “observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot,” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), provided that he is “able to articulate more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch of criminal activity,” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123-24 , 120 S.Ct. 673 , 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). The agents had seen Pannell’s car travel in tandem with a car that was subsequently apprehended and found to contain marijuana, and received a report that both cars were…