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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JUAN M ORENO, AKA M oose , AKA Jua n C risa nto M o re no, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-50293

D.C . No. 8:17-c r-00145-AG-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 Andre w J. Guilford, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d, Subm i ssion De fe rre d April 14, 2020 **

R e subm itte d

April 22, 2020 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd FER NANDEZ a

nd W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s . Jua n M ore no a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion for be ing a fe lon in posse ssion of
am m unition a nd the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of his m otion to c orre c t his se nte n c e 

# FIL ED APR 22 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r Fe de ra l R u le of C rim ina l Proc e dure 35(a ). W e a ffirm . W e a gre e that the
c ha lle nge d supe rvise d re le a se c ondition is unc onsitutiona l ly va gue , and we re m and to the distric t

c o urt for m odific ation of thec ondition. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thehistory

of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it here .

“ W e re vie w the distric t c ourt's de nia l of [a ] m otion to suppre s s de novo a nd the unde rly ing fa c tua l findings for c le ar e rror.” Unite d State s v . Zapie n , 861 F.3d 971, 974 (9th C ir. 2017) (c iting Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

z-Pre c iado , 399 F.3d 1118, 1125, ame nde d

by 416 F.3d 939 (9th C ir. 2005)). “ The c le ar e rror sta nda rd is de fe re ntia l, a

nd is not me t unle ss the re vie wing c ourt is le ft with a de finite and firm c onvic tion tha

t a m ista k e ha s be e n c om

m itte d.” In reZe rme no-Gome z , 868 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2017) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omi tte d).

“ [W ] e re vie w the distric t

c ourt's de te rm ination of whe the r [a de fe n da nt’ ] s prior
c onvic tion wa s a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse de novo.” Unite d State s v . Brow n , 879 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th C ir. 2018). W e re vie w c onstitutiona l c ha lle nge s to supe rvise d re le a se c onditions de novo. Unite d State

s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th C ir. 2009). 1. The distric t c ourt did not c om m it re ve rsible e rror in de ny ing the suppre ssion m otion. In order to justify a Te rry stop, a n offic e r m

ust ha v e re a s ona ble suspic ion tha

t a suspe c t is e nga ging in c rim ina l a c tivity
. Te rry v . Ohio , 2392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968). He re , the stop wa s pre d ic ate d on a n e nc ounte r the pre vious da y in whic h offic e rs be lie ve d M ore no ha d fle d from the m and droppe d a

ba c kpa c k
c onta ining a

digita l sc a le a ssoc iate d with drug tra nsa c tions. M ore no a

nd the offic e r provide d diffe re nt a c c ounts, a nd portions of the

offic e r’ s te stim ony

we re shown to beque stiona

b l e or inc orre c t. Howe ve r, give n the re c ord a nd the de fe re nc e owe d

to infe re nc e s dra

wn by the distric t

c ourt, se e Unite d State

s v . Valde s -Ve ga , 738 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ), the distric t

c o urt did not c om m it c l e ar e rror in c re diting the te s tim ony

and c onc luding tha

t the Te rry stop wa s justifie d. The offic e r te stifie d tha t M ore no wa s the sa

m e individual the polic e ha d

e nc ounte re d the pre v ious da y , a nd a body c am

vide o showe d othe r offic e rs sta

ting to the

de fe n da nt tha t the y ha d se e n him the pre v ious da

y . M ore no dispute s tha

t he wa s the individual tha t the offic e rs ha d e n c ounte re d. Howe ve r, the distric t c o urt re a s ona

bly re solve d tha

t disputein the offic e r’ s favor. And a lthough
an offic e r’ s good fa ith a lone is not e nough to wa rrant a stop, Te rry , 392 U.S. a

t 22,

“ [a ] m ista ke n pre m i se c an furnish grounds for a Te rry stop, if theoffic e rs do not know tha t it is m ista ke n an d a re re a sona

ble in a c ting upon it.” Unite d State s v . Garc ia-Ac una , 175 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th C ir. 1999) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d
c ita tions omitte d). The re fore , be c a use the offic e r c ould point to spe c ific and
artic ula ble fa c t s to support his be lie f that M ore no wa s the individual he ha d
3obse rve d the da y be fore and the re wa s re a son to be lie ve he wa s involve d in
c rim ina l a c tivity , it wa s not re ve rsible e rror for the distric t c ourt to c onc lude the Te rry stop wa s justifie d to inve stiga te the offic e r’ s suspic ion. Se e U nite d State

s v . He nsle y , 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985). 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t the offic e rs ha d
re a s ona ble suspic ion to c onduc t a frisk. The offic e r te stifie d tha t he he ard anothe r offic e r a sk M ore no if he ha d anything ille ga l on him , a nd tha t M ore no a

nswe re d

“ y e s.” M ore no de nie s m ak i ng this sta te m e nt. In a ddition, the

offic e r te stifie d tha

t he sa w the butt of a gun stic king out from M o re no’ s poc ke t , a

nd the butt of thegun is visible on body c am foota ge from the da y of the arre st. The distric t c ourt
c re d ite d the offic e r’ s a c c ount. Thus, give n the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s, se e Thomas v . Dillard

, 818 F.3d 864, 876 (9th C ir. 2016) (re a sona ble suspic ion
c onside rs the tota l ity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s), the distric t c ourt did not c om m it
re ve rsible e rror in c onc luding tha t the offic e rs ha d

re a sona b le suspic ion for the frisk, se eTe rry , 392 U.S. a t 24 (a frisk is justifie d upon a

re a sona ble suspic ion tha

t
a suspe c t “ is a

rm e d a nd pre se ntly

da n ge rous to theoffic e r or to othe rs” ). In short, give n

our de fe re ntia l sta

nda rd of re vie w, we c onc lude tha t the distric t c o urt did not c om m it re ve rsible e rror in de ny ing the suppre ssion m otion. 3. The distric t c ourt did not c om m it re ve rsible e rror in de ny ing M ore no’ s
m otion to c orre c t his se nte nc e pursua nt to Fe d . R . C rim P. 35(a ). The m otion wa s 4pre d ic ate d on Lore nzo v . Se ssions , 902 F.3d 930 (9th C ir. 2018), but tha t de c ision
wa s va c at e d

and withdra

w n, Lore nzo v . W

hitak e r , 752 Fe d. App’ x 482 (9th C ir. 2019). The re fore , be c a

use C a lifornia ’ s m e tha

m p he tam ine de finition ha s not be e n found ove rbroa d, the distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in c onside ring M ore no’ s pre v ious sta

te m e tha m phe tam ine c onvic tions whe n c a l c ulating theoffe nse le ve l. 4. W e va c ate the c ha lle nge d supe rvise d re le a se c ondition be c a use it is
ove rbroa d in one re spe c t

and fa ils to provide

the re quisite de te rm inate guida nc e to both M o re no a

nd the probation offic e r. Se e Unite d State s v . Ev ans , 883 F.3d 1154, 1164 (2019). Thec ha l le nge d supe rvise d re le a se c ondition is unc onstitutiona lly
va gue , a nd we re m and to thedistric t c ourt. AFFIRM E D in par t; RE M ANDE D in par t.

5Unite d

State s v . More no , No. 18-50293 W . Fle tc he r, J., disse nting: I disse nt on thegrounds tha t the distric t c ourt should ha ve grante d the
m otion to suppre ss. 

# FIL ED APR 22 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS