FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2013
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. 10-30335
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00228-MO-3
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ANGEL RAMIREZ-ARROYO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 7, 2013 **
Portland, Oregon
Before: CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District Judge.***
Appellant Angel Ramirez-Arroyo appeals the denial of his motion to
suppress evidence from a series of wiretaps.
*
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 James C. Mahan, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
1. Each of the government’s wiretap affidavits contained “a full and complete
statement” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) by discussing normal
investigative procedures that had been tried and failed, reasonably appeared
unlikely to succeed if tried, or were too dangerous. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c).
Each affidavit properly incorporated previous affidavits, see United States v.
Garcia-Villalba, 585 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2009), and provided case-specific
explanations for the use, limitations and rejection of various traditional
surveillance tactics in the investigations of specific individuals. See id. at 1229–30.
2. Based on the sufficient factual matter contained in each supporting affidavit,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the wiretaps, including
the extensions, were “necessary” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c).
United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2008).
3. Accordingly, it was proper for the district court to deny appellant’s motion
to suppress. See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1234 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.