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. DEAUNTR

E M ONTGOM ER

Y, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-10217

D.C . No. 3:17-c r-00095-W HA-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Alsup, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Oc tobe r 22, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS and B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. De a untre M ontgom e ry

a ppe a ls his c onvic tion pursua nt to 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1) for posse ssing a fire arm and a m m unition a s a

c onvic te d fe lon a

nd, spe c ific a lly , the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of his m otion to suppre ss a ha n dgun disc ove re d during a

stop a n d frisk. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED OCT 24 2019 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.W e re vie w re a sona ble suspic ion de te rm inations denov o and the findings of historic a l fa c ts unde rly ing tha t de te rm ination for c le ar e rror. Unite d State s v . Valde s -Ve ga , 738 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ) (c ita tion omitte d). In doing so, wea fford “ due we ight to infere nc e s dra wn from those fa c ts by

re side nt judge s and loc a l la

w e n forc e m e nt offic e rs.” Id . (quota tions a nd c ita tion omitte d). De fe nda nt c onc e de s tha

t the offic e rs ha d re a s ona

ble suspic ion tha

t he ha d
e nga ge d in c rim i na l a c tivity , justify ing his initia l de t e ntion under Te rry v . Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968). He c ha l le nge s only

whe t he r the offic e rs e sta

blishe d
re a s ona ble suspic ion for the subse que nt frisk. W e a sse ss the re a s ona ble ne ss of a Te rry frisk unde r the tota lity of the c i rc um sta

nc e s. Unite d State

s v . Arv izu , 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). He re , the distric t c ourt ide ntifie d a num be r of fa c tors supporting the frisk, the m ost im

porta nt of whic h

wa s the two offic e rs’ te stim ony tha t the de fe nda

nt’ s ha nd a nd a rm m ove m e nts le d the m to indepe nde ntly and sim ulta ne ously suspe c t that the de fe n da

nt wa s c onc e a ling c ontra

ba n d or a we a pon. The distric t c ourt
c re d ite d the ir te stim ony , noting tha t the diffe re nc e s in the i r de sc riptions of the de fe nda nt’ s a c tions did not m

ake the ir te s tim o ny

unre lia ble . R athe r, the c ourt
c re d ite d the offic e rs’ inde pe nde nt a nd sim ulta ne ous c onc lusions tha

t the m o ve m e nt the y sa w a ppe are d suspic ious a

nd indic ate d c o nc e a lm e nt of a we a pon or
2c ontra

ba nd in thede fe nda

nt’ s wa istba

nd. This fa c tor, c ouple d with theothe r fa c t ors c i te d by

the distric t c ourt, justifie d its c onc lusion tha t the re wa s re a sona

ble suspic ion for thefrisk unde r the tota l ity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s. Give n the re c ord
and the de fe re nc e we owe to the infe re nc e s dra wn by the distric t c ourt a

nd the onsc e n e offic e rs, se e Vale

s-Ve gas , 738 F.3d a

t 1077, the re wa s no re ve rsible e rror in the d istric t c o urt’ s de c ision to deny the suppre ssion m o tion. AFFIRM E D.

3