United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 23-1055
                          ___________________________

                               United States of America

                          lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                             v.

                                    Izeall T. Collins

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                        ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: February 15, 2024
                                Filed: July 30. 2024
                                   ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON,1 and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

       A jury convicted Izeall Collins of possession of heroin with intent to distribute
in violation 

(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of drug trafficking in violation of 

(c)(1)(A). The district


      1
       Judge Colloton became Chief Judge of the Circuit on March 11, 2024. See 

(a)(1).
court2 sentenced him to 228 months imprisonment. Collins appeals, arguing the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and erred in denying his motion
for acquittal at the close of evidence because the evidence was insufficient to sustain
his conviction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). Reviewing these predominantly legal
issues de novo we affirm.

                                   I. Background

       On March 4, 2019, passenger Collins arrived at the Kansas City Greyhound bus
terminal on a bus traveling from Los Angeles to New York City. Collins boarded the
bus in Denver. His ultimate destination was Norfolk, Virginia. Members of the
Missouri Western Interdiction & Narcotics Task Force (the MoWIN task force) were
at the terminal when the bus arrived for cleaning and refueling. The MoWIN task
force has seized large quantities of narcotics at the Kansas City terminal from
passengers and luggage on Los Angeles to New York Greyhound buses.

       At the Kansas City terminal, all passengers exited the bus. Detective Garcia,
a member of the MoWIN task force, walked a drug detection dog around the bus to
conduct an open-air sniff of the checked luggage compartments. Detective Wells,
another member of the task force, watched the passengers from a nearby building.
He noticed that Collins was watching Detective Garcia and the dog, and moved away
from the protected smoking section in below-freezing temperatures to maintain a line
of sight when Detective Garcia and the dog moved to the other side of the bus and
then entered the bus. When Garcia and the dog left the bus, Collins reboarded.
Suspecting Collins had reboarded to retrieve or dispose of contraband, Detective
Wells positioned himself to see down the passenger aisle through the front



      2
      The Honorable Gregory David Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

                                         -2-
windshield. Wells saw Collins walk down the aisle and inspect a seating area on the
driver’s side. Collins did not appear to deposit or retrieve anything.

       When Collins exited the bus, Detective Wells described his observations of
what he considered suspicious activity to other officers, including Detective Michael
Nelson. Detective Nelson approached Collins, who was standing in line with other
passengers waiting to reboard. Nelson smelled a strong odor of marijuana; in plain
clothes, he presented his badge, explained that he was working in narcotics
interdiction, and asked if he could speak with Collins. Collins said yes. Collins
produced a Colorado driver’s license and bus tickets. Detective Nelson asked Collins
if he was carrying any contraband. Collins answered yes, and pulled out a tin can
containing a “green, leafy substance” that Detective Nelson believed to be marijuana.

       Detective Nelson asked if he could search Collins. Collins said yes. Inside
Collins’s front waistband, Detective Nelson felt a brick-like object he believed to be
a package of illegal drugs. Nelson placed Collins under arrest and brought him to an
office inside the Greyhound station. There, Nelson removed the brick-like object
from Collins’s pants and found what appeared to be drugs wrapped in cellophane and
covered in duct tape. Another detective found U.S. currency and a live nine-
millimeter bullet in Collins’s jacket. Laboratory tests revealed that the package
contained over one kilogram of heroin with a street value of $45,000 to $60,000.

       Meanwhile, after finding no bags belonging to Collins with the bus’s checked
luggage, Detectives Wells and Garcia boarded the bus. They found a black backpack
and blue cooler on an empty seat near where Wells saw Collins stop to look around
when he first reboarded the bus. The backpack and cooler were not claimed by other
reboarding passengers. Wells brought the backpack and cooler into the office, where
Collins said they did not belong to him, and then back to the bus, where again no
other passenger claimed them. A warrant search of the cooler yielded a loaded Kel-
Tec 9-millimeter handgun that matched the 9-millimeter round found in Collins’s

                                         -3-
jacket. The backpack contained duct tape, a letter signed by “Izeall Collins,” and
clothing that matched the brand of the jacket that Collins wore when he was arrested.

                               II. Suppression Issues

       Collins moved to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest, arguing the
MoWIN task force officers conducted a warrantless investigatory stop and search of
his person without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in violation of his Fourth
Amendment rights. Following an evidentiary hearing, Magistrate Judge Lajuana M.
Counts filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that Collins’s Fourth
Amendment rights had not been violated. The district court adopted the Report and
Recommendation and denied the motion to suppress. We review the district court’s
legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v.
Mitchell, 

 (8th Cir. 2022).

       At the suppression hearing, Detective Wells testified that MoWIN task force
officers regularly interdict Greyhound buses on the Los Angeles to New York route,
which stops in Las Vegas and Denver, cities where large volumes of narcotics
distributed throughout the United States originate. They have often seized
contraband at the Kansas City terminal using the investigative procedures that
resulted in the seizure of drugs and a firearm from Collins in this case.

      Wells testified that he watched Collins exit the bus with the other passengers,
then move around in sub-freezing weather to watch Detective Garcia’s dog sniffing
the checked luggage compartments, then move to where he could see down the
passenger aisle when Garcia and the dog entered the bus. Detective Wells testified
that Collins’s behavior was consistent with other bus passengers he had arrested when
working interdiction; suspects visually inspect the area where they were sitting after
a drug dog enters the bus to determine if “bags had been manipulated or if law
enforcement had become aware of the contraband.”

                                         -4-
       Detective Wells testified that he communicated his observations of this
suspicious activity to other task force officers including Detective Nelson, who then
approached Collins to speak with him as he was in line with other passengers to
reboard the bus. Detective Nelson testified that he detected a strong odor of
marijuana as he approached Collins. Nelson testified he identified himself and asked
if he could speak to Collins, who said yes. Detective Nelson asked to see Collins’s
bus ticket and identification. Collins handed over the ticket and a Colorado driver’s
license. Detective Nelson observed that Collins appeared nervous, his hands were
shaking, and he was sweating profusely despite the cold weather.

        Detective Nelson explained to Collins that he was part of a unit which
interdicts marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl and asked Collins if he possessed
any of those drugs. Collins said he possessed a small amount of marijuana and pulled
a tin box containing what appeared to be marijuana out of his coat. Because of the
marijuana, Detective Nelson decided to investigate further. Believing a search for
weapons was necessary for safety purposes, he asked Collins if he could search him
for weapons; Collins said yes. Reaching into Collins’s front waistband area, Nelson
felt a brick-shaped object that he recognized as illegal narcotics. He placed Collins
under arrest. The brick-shaped object was found to contain approximately one
kilogram of heroin. After Collins’s arrest, Detective Wells went back on the bus and
recovered items that another passenger indicated belonged to Collins.

       Detective Nelson testified that he did not raise his voice, give an “aggressive
command,” use handcuffs, or display a weapon during his conversation with Collins.
Detective Nelson determined that Collins was not free to go because of the marijuana
on his person but did not communicate this to Collins. While he was being searched,
Collins was heard saying on his cell phone, “They got me, they’re arresting me now.”
The testimony of Detectives Wells and Nelson at trial was less extensive but
consistent with their suppression hearing testimony.



                                         -5-
      On appeal, Collins does not point to contradictory trial evidence nor does he
challenge the district court’s findings of fact in denying his motion to suppress.
Rather, he argues that “[t]he targeting of Mr. Collins as a subject of interest from the
moment he stepped off the bus,” and the officers ignoring reasonable alternative
explanations for why he reboarded the bus after Detective Garcia and his dog exited,
made this an “investigatory stop” without reasonable suspicion that criminal activity
was afoot, an unreasonable seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

      As the district court recognized, the critical issue in this case is when the
Fourth Amendment seizure occurred. The Supreme Court has explained:

      [A] seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches
      an individual and asks a few questions. So long as a reasonable person
      would feel free ‘to disregard the police and go about his business’ . . .
      the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion is required.

Florida v. Bostick, 

 (1991) (citation omitted); see United States v.
Lillich, 

 (8th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 

 (2022). In
most circumstances, the seizure test is whether a reasonable person would believe that
he or she is not free to leave. See, e.g. Michigan v. Chesternut, 

(1988). But bus passengers are different “because passengers on a bus have
voluntarily placed themselves in a restricted area that they do not wish to leave.”
United States v. Graham, 

 (8th Cir. 1992):

      Accordingly, the “free to leave” analysis on which [Collins] relies is
      inapplicable. . . . The appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable person
      would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate
      the encounter.

Bostick, 

.



                                          -6-
       Here, there was no interference with Collins’s movements prior to Detective
Nelson approaching Collins and asking questions. The open-air dog sniff of the
checked luggage compartments beneath the Greyhound bus and of the passenger
seating areas after passengers departed for a break did not trigger Fourth Amendment
scrutiny. See United States v. Harvey, 

 (8th Cir.), cert.
denied, 

 (1992); cf. United States v. Va Lerie, 

 (8th
Cir. 2005) (en banc), cert. denied, 

 (2006). Nor was the Fourth
Amendment violated when Detective Wells watched Collins after passengers left the
bus. Wells observed Collins from a distance, in a public place where Collins had no
reasonable expectation of privacy. Detectives Wells and Garcia then boarded the bus
and inspected the area that Collins had paused to look around following the dog sniff.
They in no way interfered with Collins’s liberty. They conducted drug trafficking
investigation consistent with the task force’s regular interdiction procedures.

       That a police officer suspects criminal activity when he approaches a person
in a public place and asks questions does not violate the Fourth Amendment so long
as the suspect’s freedom to decline to cooperate is respected. See Bostick, 

. Collins does not argue that a reasonable person in his position would not have
felt free to decline to cooperate. Thus, prior to Collins admitting that he was in
possession of marijuana, whether there were “other reasonable explanations for [his]
behavior” is irrelevant.

       When Detective Wells reported what he considered suspicious activity to other
task force officers, Detective Nelson approached Collins and asked to speak to him.
They were in an open area outside the bus. There is no evidence Detective Nelson
spoke aggressively, displayed his weapon, or blocked Collins’s movement. The
district court found that Detective Nelson’s initial encounter with Collins was
consensual. On appeal, Collins has failed to identify any evidence suggesting that the
encounter was not consensual when Collins agreed to answer Nelson’s questions.



                                         -7-
       We agree with the district court that the initial encounter was consensual.
Therefore, need not consider whether, even if not consensual, Detective Nelson’s
approach and questioning leading to the discovery and seizure of drugs and a firearm
was a permissible Fourth Amendment investigatory stop supported by reasonable
suspicion that Collins was engaged in criminal activity -- the interstate transportation
of illegal narcotics. See, e.g., United States v. Quinn, 

 (8th Cir.
2016), citing Terry v. Ohio, 

 (1968). We note that a person’s “unusual”
behavior in the presence of law enforcement is relevant in determining whether an
officer’s suspicion is objectively reasonable. See United States v. LaGrange, 

 (8th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 

 (2021).

       When Detective Nelson smelled marijuana and Collins admitted to possessing
marijuana and produced a substance that appeared to be marijuana, Detective Nelson
handcuffed Collins and placed him under arrest. An officer with probable cause may
arrest a person without a warrant, United States v. Mathes, 

 (8th Cir.
2023), and may search him incident to the arrest. United States v. Robinson, 

 (1973).

      Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Collins’s motion to suppress.

                          III. Sufficiency of the Evidence

       Reciting the standard of review for challenging the denial of a motion for
judgment of acquittal, Collins argues there is “reasonable doubt” as to his convictions
and the government presented insufficient evidence to convict him of possessing
heroin with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime. We view the facts in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict
and affirm if “a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.” United States v. LaRoche, 

 (8th Cir. 2023)
(quotation omitted), cert. denied, 

 (2024). “We apply the same standard

                                          -8-
of review to the district court’s ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal.” United
States v. Broeker, 

 (8th Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted).

       A. To prove Collins possessed heroin with intent to distribute, “the
government must prove the defendant knowingly possessed the heroin and he
intended to distribute it.” United States v. Peebles, 

 (8th Cir.),
cert. denied, 

 (2018). Either actual or constructive possession will
suffice. Intent to distribute can be shown through the quantity of drugs possessed
alone. Id. Resolving all inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict, the evidence is more
than sufficient to support Collins’s conviction for possession of heroin with intent to
distribute. Detective Nelson testified that he found the package, which was later
determined to be heroin, on Collins’s person. One kilogram of heroin, at least 1,000
individual doses, is more than enough to establish intent to distribute. See Peebles,

 (holding that one quarter kilogram was sufficient to show intent to
distribute).

       B. To prove Collins possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, the government must prove he knowingly possessed the firearm found in the
cooler left in the passenger seating area that he had reboarded the bus to inspect, and
that a nexus existed between the firearm and his drug crime. United States v. Druger,

 (8th Cir. 2019). Actual or constructive possession will suffice.
United States v. Saddler, 

 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 

(2008). Constructive possession “requires evidence that a defendant knowingly has
the power and intention to exercise control over the firearm.” 

 (quotation omitted).
Nexus may be shown in a variety of ways, including evidence “that tend[s] to show
the use of firearms to protect drugs or drug proceeds, or to embolden traffickers
generally in their receipt, storage, and distribution of drugs.” United States v. Urbina-
Rodriguez, 

 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 

 (2021).




                                          -9-
       At trial, the government presented testimony from an officer who works with
a federal interdiction task force that drug traffickers often carry firearms to protect the
drugs they are trafficking. Here, the firearm was found in a cooler that was unclaimed
by any other passenger. The firearm was designed to fire the same caliber
ammunition as the bullet found in Collins’s jacket. The backpack, left next to the
cooler and also unclaimed, contained a letter signed by Izeall Collins. Under our
deferential review, this is more than enough to establish at least constructive
possession of the firearm. Proof of nexus is sufficient “when [the firearm] is kept in
close proximity to the drugs, it is quickly accessible, and there is expert testimony
regarding the use of firearms in connection with drug trafficking.” Druger, 

 (quotation omitted). At the scene, Collins was found in possession of a
distribution quantity of heroin. A firearm was found in baggage containing other
items identifying Collins as its owner. There was officer testimony that drug
traffickers often carry firearms for protection. This evidence is sufficient to sustain
the jury’s verdict convicting Collins of both charges.

       The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                      ______________________________




                                           -10-