T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its p e r s u a s i v e v a l u e c o n s i s t e n twi th F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 2 . 1 ( e f f. De c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 2 . 1 (ef f. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### D e c e m b e r 18, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 2024 BRI AN NEI L GR AC E, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . CR - 0 5 - 1 4 8 - J CH ) ( D . N ew M exi co)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e BRI S CO E, M c CO NNELL , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ldn o t m a ter iallya ss ist in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is appea l . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e, o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. H avi ng ent er ed a c ondi t i onal gui l typl ea t o one countof bank r obberyi n vi ol at i on o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 3 (a ) a n d o n e c o u n t o f a rm e d b a n kro b b e ry in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2113( a) , ( d) , D efe ndantB r i an G r ace appea l s the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s an- 2-

i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement , al ong w i th al l evi dence der i ved ther efr om . W e have j ur i s di ct i on p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f irm .

“‘ W hen r evi ew i ng the deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e vi ew the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o the gov ernm ent, accep tthe d i stri ctcou rt ’s fi nd i ng s of fact unl ess cl ear l yerr oneous , and r evi ew de novo the ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of r eas onabl enes s under the F o u rth A m en d m en t. ’” U n it ed S tat es v . A p p erso n , 4 4 1 F . 3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 8 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o tin g U n ited S tate s v . K a to a , 3 7 9 F .3 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 )). A s h e d id befor e the di s tr i ctcourt , G r ace cont ends on appea l thatO ffi cerL i ndel l W r i ghtdi d not have r eas onabl e art i cul abl e s us pi ci on t o s upportthe s t op. I n r es pons e, the U ni t ed St at es ar gues thatthe i nt er act i on betw een G r ace and W r i ghtw as a cons ens ual encount er r equi r i ng no l evel of s us pi ci on. I n the al t ernat i ve, the U ni t ed St at es as s ert s thatthe s i m i l ar i tybetw een G r ace and hi s carand the des cr i pt i on of the bank r obberys us pectand the s u sp ec t’ s ca r pro v ided W ri g h t w ith rea so n ab le arti cu lable su sp ici o n to stop G rac e’s vehi cl e. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt , even i f w e conc l ude thatW r i ghthad se ize d G ra c e , W rig h t h a d re a so n a b le a rticu lab le s u sp icio n to d e tain G ra c e . A s a re su lt, the d i stri ctcou rtdid not err i n d eny i ng G race’ s m oti on t o sup press . A F F IR M E D . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge