Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felix GARCIA-GODOY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-09
Citations: 468 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 11-50204
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felix GARCIA-GODOY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felix GARCIA-GODOY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50204.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 2012.
Filed Feb. 9, 2012.
Ami Sheth, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carlton Gunn, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Felix Garcia-Godoy appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during an inventory search of his vehicle.
Contrary to Garcia-Godoy's assertion, the inventory search in this case was not "for the sole purpose of investigation." Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); United States v. Bowhay, 992 F.2d 229, 231 (9th Cir.1993).
Nor was the district court's finding that the searching officers followed "standardized procedures" clearly erroneous. See United States v. Ruckes, 586 F.3d 713, 716 (9th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Mancera-Londono, 912 F.2d 373, 375 (9th Cir.1990). It is of no moment that the search was never completed. United States v. Scott, 665 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1981).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.