FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-30336
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-05775-RBL-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ANDRES HERNANDEZ-VARGAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 13, 2010 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, Senior District
Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior United States District Judge
for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
Andres Hernandez-Vargas appeals his conviction for possession of
methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
and 841(b)(1)(A). We affirm the district court’s denial of Hernandez-Vargas’s
motion to suppress.
1. At the time of the seizure, the officers had received a tip from a reliable
confidential informant and had corroborated that tip; this constitutes probable
cause. United States v. Trejo-Zambrano, 582 F.2d 460, 463 (9th Cir. 1978).
2. The officers did not exceed the scope of the search permissible, because the
officers could search the vehicle “as thorough[ly] as a magistrate could authorize in
a warrant particularly describing the place to be searched.” United States v. Ross,
456 U.S. 798, 800 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3. Hernandez-Vargas’s comments made to Officer Wheeler are admissible,
because they were voluntarily made during a routine traffic stop. Berkemer v.
McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 438–41 (1984).
Assuming without deciding that Hernandez-Vargas’s subsequent comments
to Officer Burns and Agent Grimm were taken in violation of his rights under
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), we find such error “harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see, e.g.,
2
United States v. Butler, 249 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding improper
admission of comments harmless because of overwhelming evidence of guilt.)
AFFIRMED.
3