FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 08 2011
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. 10-30324
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-02025-FVS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
EDDIE DAVID ZAMARRIPA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 3, 2011 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: NOONAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and GUILFORD, 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 Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge for
the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
Eddie David Zamarripa (“Zamarripa”) entered a conditional guilty plea to a
charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the
firearm that police officers found during an investigative stop. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, while reviewing for
clear error the underlying factual findings. United States v. Davis, 530 F.3d 1069,
1077 (9th Cir. 2008).
The investigative stop was supported by reasonable suspicion that criminal
activity may have been afoot. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The
officers had reason to believe that Zamarripa (a) resembled a car-prowl suspect; (b)
had just banged on a car and invited its occupants to fight; (c) was wearing a gang-
related head covering in an area known for gang activity; and (d) had previously
been associated with gang activity in the area. Considering the totality of the
circumstances, these facts were enough to support an investigative stop. See
United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Reasonable
suspicion is formed by specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and
reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person
2
detained is engaged in criminal activity.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The frisk was also justified. The officers were aware of Zamarripa’s recent,
aggressive encounter with a car and were outnumbered by Zamarripa and his
companions. Moreover, the area where the stop occurred was known for gang-
related violence, Officer Salinas recognized Zamarripa as having connections with
a gang from a previous interaction, and Zamarripa was wearing a color claimed by
the Norteño gang in Yakima. Based on these facts, the officers reasonably
suspected that Zamarripa may have been armed and dangerous. See Johnson, 581
F.3d at 999.
AFFIRMED.
3