Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew VAN LITH, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kailey Doan, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-15
Citations: 511 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: Nos. 12-30118, 12-30119
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew VAN LITH, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kailey Doan, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew VAN LITH, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kailey Doan, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 12-30118, 12-30119.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 5, 2013.
Filed March 15, 2013.
Kevin Thomas Maloney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Samuel Richard Rubin, Federal Public Defender, FDWAID-Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Melissa D. Winberg, Federal Defender Services of Idaho, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, 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
Appellants Matthew Van Lith and Kai-ley Doan, who were convicted of marijuana possession at an Idaho campground, challenge the district court's denial of their motions to suppress.
The district court properly denied the motions to suppress because, under the totality of circumstances, the Bureau of Land Management ranger "had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting" that Van Lith and Doan were engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Basher, 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.2011) (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.