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. LESTER PINEX III, AKA Le ste r Johnson, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30050

D.C . No. 1:14-c r-00088-SPW -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 2, 2017 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PAEZ a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LAM B ER T H, ** Distric t Judge . Le ste r Pine x a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss e vide nc e an d the distric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of thefour-le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G § 2K2.1(b)(6). W e a ffirm in pa rt a nd re ve rse in pa

rt. 

# FIL ED DEC 19 2017 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.

* * The Honora

ble R oy c e C . Lam

be rth, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of C olum

bia , sitting by de s igna

tion.1. Pine x m ove d to suppre ss the se iz ure of he roin, a lle g ing tha t the tra ffic stop wa s prolonge d without re a sona ble suspic ion of c rim ina l a c tivity in viola t ion of the Fourth Am e ndm e n t . W e re vie w “ de novo a distric t c ourt’ s le ga l c onc lusions re ga rding the de nia l of a

m otion to suppre ss.” Unite d State s v . I.E.V. , 705 F.3d 430, 434 (9th C ir. 2012). In Rodrigue

z v . Unite d State

s , 135 S. C t. 1609 (2015), the Supre m e C ourt he ld tha t “ a polic e stop e xc e e ding thetim e ne e d e d to ha ndle the m atte r for whic h the s top wa s m a de viola

te s the C onstitution’ s shie ld a g a inst unre a s ona ble se iz ure s.” Id. a t 1612. A prolonge d stop is unc onstitutiona l if it both e xc e e ds the tim e ne e de d

for the initia l purpose of the stop a nd the re is no inde

pe nde nt re a s ona ble suspic ion to a llow thepolic e to e xte nd the le ngth of thestop. Id. In othe r words, “ [a ] uthority

for the se iz ure . . . e nds . . . whe n ta sks tie d to the tra ffic infra c t ion a

re — or re a sona

b ly should ha

ve be e n— c om

ple te d.” Unite d State

s v . Ev ans , 786 F.3d 779, 786 (9th C ir. 2015). If during a tra ffic stop, “ne w grounds for suspic ion of c rim ina l a c tivity c ontinue [] to unfold,”the pe riod of the de t e ntion c an be c onstitutiona

lly e xte nde d . Unite d State

s v . May o , 394 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th C ir. 2005) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). In this c a se , give n the tota lity of the c irc um s ta nc e s , a s e ve nts unfolde d the polic e offic e rs ha d re a sona ble suspic ion to be lie ve tha

t c rim ina l a c tivity

wa s a foot. 2Pine x wa s pulle d ove r for spe e ding, whic h the pa rtie s do not dispute

wa s a va lid tra ffic stop. The que stion is whe the r that stop— whic h la ste d ne arly

two hours— wa s prolonge d without re a s ona ble suspic ion tha

t Pine x wa s involve d in c rim ina l a c tivity . Se e id. At the be ginning of the stop, Pine x provide d the offic e rs with a re nta l c ar a g re e m e nt, tha t showe d the c ar he wa s driving ha d be e n re nte d to a third pa rty , who wa s not pre se nt. The stop took plac e on I-94, whic h la w e nforc e m e nt offic e rs c onside r a “ drug c orridor.” Additiona lly , Pine x ga

v e the offic e rs a

fa l se nam e , soc ia l se c urity num be r, and da te of birth, noneof whic h re turne d a positiveide ntific at ion of Pine x whe n one of the offic e rs trie d to run theinform at ion through a va ila ble data ba se s. The fa c t tha t Pine x’ s ide ntity

c ould not bec onfirm e d a n d tha t the re nta l c ar ha d

be e n re nte d to a

nothe r pe rson prom

pte d the offic e rs to que stion sepa ra te ly Pine xand his pa sse nge r De an ge lo Ty le r. Afte r spe aking with Pine x a nd Ty le r, the offic e rs notic e d inc onsiste nc i e s in the inform ation the y provide d . In subse que nt c onve rsations with the

re nta l c ar c om

p any the offic e rs le arne d

tha t Pine x ha d lie d a bout thewhe re a

b outs of thethird pa

rty nam e d in the re nta l a gre e m e nt, a nd the c om pa ny a uthoriz e d a

se arc h of the c ar and re que ste d tha t it be im pounde d. Although the offic e rs c a lle d for a tow truc k , give n its loc ation the re wa s de la y in its arriva l at the sc e ne . As the se fa c ts e volve d, the offic e rs re a sona bly suspe c te d tha

t 3Pine x wa s involve d in drug tra ffic k ing. This inde pe n de nt ba sis for re a s ona b le suspic ion a

m ply supporte d the offic e rs de c ision to prolong the stop a nd c a ll for a drug dog. Give n the tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s, the prolonge d tra ffic stop wa s supporte d by re a sona

b le suspic ion tha

t c rim ina l a c tivity wa s a foot. W e the re fore a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of Pine x’ s m otion to suppre ss e v ide nc e . 2. Pine x a lso c ha lle nge s the a pplic ation of the four-le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.C . § 2K2.1(b)(6). W e re v ie w “ the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theSe nte nc ing Guide line s de novo, thedistric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of the Se nte nc ing Guide line s to the fa c ts of [a ] c a se for a b use of disc re tion, a

nd the distric t c o urt’ s fa c tua l findings for c le ar e rror.” Unite d State s v . C antre ll , 433 F.3d 1269, 1279 (9th C ir. 2006) (quoting Unite d State s v . K imbre w , 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th C ir. 2005)). In re le va nt pa rt, the four-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt a

pplie s whe n the de fe n da

nt

“ use d or posse sse d a

ny fire arm or am m unition in c onne c tion with a nothe r fe lony offe nse .” U.S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E LI

N E S M A N U A L § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B ) (2016). Applic a t ion Note 14(A) e xpla ins tha t “ [s] ubse c tion[ ] (b)(6)(B ) . . . [a pplie s] if the fire arm or am m unition fa c ilita

te d, or ha d the pote ntia l of fa c ilita ting, a nothe r fe lony offe nse or a

nothe r offe nse , re spe c tive ly .” This c ontra s ts with the dire c tive in Applic a tion Note14(B ) that subse c tion (b)(6)(B ) a pplie s “ in the c a se of a

drug 4tra ffic king offe nse in whic h a fire arm is found in c lose proxim i tyto drugs, drugm anufa c turing m a te ria ls, or drug pa ra phe rna lia . ” As the note e xpla ins, “ [i] n the se c a se s, a pplic a tion of subse c tions (b)(6)(B ) . . . is wa rrante d be c a

use the pre se nc e of the fire arm

ha s the pote ntia l of fa c i lita ting a n othe r fe lony

offe nse or a

n othe r offe nse , re spe c tive ly .” The distric t c ourt c o nc l ude d tha t the gun “p l ay e d

an e m bolde ning role in [Pine x ’ s] c rim i na l posse ssion of those drugs,” and the re fore a

pplie d the e nha nc e m e nt. In doing so, the distric t c ourt note d tha

t a lthough the

gun a nd drugs we re in se pa

rate c onta ine rs, the y

we re in c lose proxim ity

and tha t Pine x spoke of the d rugs a nd gun a t the sam e tim e , the re by

sugge sting tha

t in his mi nd the y

we re re late d. B e c a

use the othe r fe lony

offe nse he re wa s not a

drug tra ffic king c rim e , we look to Applic ation Note14(A) for guida nc e . Whe n the othe r fe lony

offe nse is not a

drug tra ffic king c rim e , we hav e he ld that a c c e ssibility

is a c e ntra l fa c tor in de te rm ining whe the r the se c t ion 2K2.1(b)(6) e nha nc e m e nt should a

pply . Unite d State

s v . Routon , 25 F.3d 815, 819 (9th C ir. 1994). In U

nite d State

s v . Routon , whic h involve d a fe lony posse ssion of a

stole n ve hic le , we a c k

n owle dge d

tha t the e nha nc e m e nt m ay

a p ply if posse ssion of the fire arm “ ha d som e pote ntia l e m

bolde ning role in[] a

de fe nda nt’ s fe lonious c onduc t.” Id . This e m

bolde ning role wa s in turn suffic ie nt to pe rm it a finding of 5“ fa c ilita

tion,” whe re a s m e re posse ssion wa s not. Ke y to the de t e rm ination tha

t the gun e m bolde ne d R outon’ s c onduc t wa s the fa c t tha t it wa s e a sily

a c c e s sible .

“ R outon’ s a

ppa re nt e fforts to m a inta in the ac c e ssibility of his gun whe ne ve r he use d his c ar pe rm it the infe re nc e tha t the gun e m

bolde ne d him

to c o n tinue his ille g a l c onduc t.” Id. (e m

pha sis a dde d). Although the othe r c rim ina l offe nse in Routon wa s posse ssion of a stole n ve hic le ra the r tha

n posse ssion of drugs, the sam e princ i ple s a

pply , a s Applic ation Note 14(A) provide s guida nc e for e a c h. He re , the gun wa s not a c c e ssible to Pine x . Inde e d, it wa s in a loc ke d suitc a se in the trunk of his c ar. He c ould not gain a c c e ss to the gun without signific ant e ffort give n its loc a tion in the trunk. This lac k of a c c e ssibility c ontra sts with Routon , whe re the gun wa s in the front of the c ar be t we e n the drive r and pa sse nge r se a ts. The fa c t tha t the gun a

nd the drugs we re both in the trunk doe s not support the

distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t the gun e m

bolde ne d Pine x’ s posse ssion of the drugs. The distric t c ourt e rre d by foc using on proxim

ity ra the r tha

n a c c e ssibility . For the a bove re a s ons the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of Pine x ’ s m o tion to suppre ss e vide n c e is a ffirm e d. And thedistric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6) four- le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt is re ve rse d a

nd the c a se is re m ande d for re s e nte n c ing. 6AFFIRM E D in par t; RE V E RSE D in par t and RE M ANDE D for

r e se nte nc ing.

7