N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. VIC TOR GAR C IA SANTOS, AKA Vic tor Ga rc ia -Santos, AKA Vic tor Sa ntos, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50122

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00916-PA-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, TALLM AN, a

nd R AW L INSON, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Vic tor Ga

rc ia Santos (Sa

ntos) a ppe a ls his c onvic tions and 30-m onth se nte nc e im pose d following his guilty ple a to two c ounts of posse s sion with inte

nt to distribute

he roin, in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(B ), and (b)(1)(C ). Santos c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

by de ny ing 

# FIL ED JUL 17 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.his m otion to suppre ss he roin disc ove re d in his c a r. Santos a lso a

ppe a l s the writte n judgm e nt insofa

r a s one c ondition of supe rvise d re le a s e diffe rs from a c ondition ora l ly pronounc e d at his se nte nc ing he aring. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . R e vie wing the distric t c ourt’ s le ga l c onc lusions denovo a n d its unde rly ing fa c t ua l findings for c le a

r e rror, se e Unite d State

s v . I.E.V. , 705 F.3d 430, 434 (9th C ir. 2012), we c onc lude tha t the m o tion to suppre ss wa s prope rly de nie d. Unde r the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, the offic e rs’ use of guns to de ta in Santos did not tra

n sform an inve stiga

tory stop into a

n a rre st, a nd the re fore , the offic e rs did not ne e d proba ble c a use to de ta in Sa

ntos; re a sona

b le suspic ion, whic h the y ha d, wa s e nough. Se e Gre e n v . C ity & C nty . of San Franc isc o , 751 F.3d 1039, 1047-49 (9th C ir. 2014). Sa ntos wa s a

suspe c te d

na rc otic s tra ffic ke r and he re a c he d unde r his se a t c ushion in re sponse to the offic e rs’ a pproa c h, indic ating tha

t he wa s possibly re a c hing for a we a pon. S e eHay niev . C

nty . of Los Ange le

s , 339 F.3d 1071, 1076-77 (9th C ir. 2003). Dra wing fire arm s wa s a

re a sona ble re sponse to le gitim a t e offic e r sa fe ty c onc e rns. Se e

, e . g., Galle

gos v . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 308 F.3d 987, 991 (9th C ir. 2002). B e c a use Santos a

p pe a re d to re a c h unde r his se at c ushion whe n he sa w the offic e rs a pproa c h, the offic e rs we re pe rm itte d to re m ove him from the c ar, frisk 2him , a

nd c o nduc t a

prote c tive se arc h of “ the are a within [Sa

ntos’ ] im m e d iate c ontrol . . .” Mic higan v . Long , 463 U.S. 1032, 1048 (1983) (c ita tion omi tte d). Whe n the y did, the y

la wfully found drugs under his se at. Se e id . Fina lly , the writte n judgm e nt c ontrols ove r the am biguous a nd a ppa re ntly m issta te d ora l pronounc e m e nt of se n te nc e . S e e Unite d State s v . N apie r , 463 F.3d 1040, 1043 (9th C ir. 2006). AFFIRM E D .

3