U.S.
v.
Vigil

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitMay 18, 2011
433 Fed. Appx. 583 (9th Cir. 2011)

No. 10-10391.

Argued and Submitted May 9, 2011.

Filed May 18, 2011.

Elizabeth Adair Strange, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ralph Everett Ellinwood, Ellinwood Francis Plowman, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:09-cr-01108-DCB-JJM-1.

Before: D.W. NELSON and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District Judge.

The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Southern New York, New York, sitting by designation.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Jeffrey Vigil appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through a Border Patrol agent's stop of his vehicle. After the district court denied his motion to suppress, Vigil was convicted in a bench trial of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and has begun serving his twenty-four month sentence. We affirm.

The district court did not err in denying Vigil's motion to suppress. Law enforcement officials may stop a vehicle without probable cause in order to "investigate a reasonable suspicion that its occupants are involved in criminal activity." United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 226, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) (citations omitted). In this case, the district court did not err in finding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop Vigil. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274-78, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002).

AFFIRMED.