David P. Carrier was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol by a magistrate judge and his conviction was affirmed on appeal by the district court. On appeal to this court he raises one issue: whether the magistrate judge should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence gathered following the investigative stop of his vehicle. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Viewing the evidence as required, see United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998), we find that the magistrate judge, and district court on appeal, properly found that the involved officer had a reasonable suspicion that Carrier was driving under the influence of alcohol when she stopped him. See United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992) (giving review standard). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.