Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-10
Citations: 303 F. App'x 385
Docket Number: No. 06-10683
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 303
Pages: 385–385

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10683.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 10, 2008.
Matthew D. Segal, Esq., USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alexandra Paradis Negin, Esq., FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: NOONAN, KLEINFELD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Angel Zamora appeals his conviction of one count of possession with intent to distribute 83.07 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) on the grounds that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. He argues that the police lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion to seize him, in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The record indicates that the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the initial minimally intrusive stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Zamora concedes that after the initial stop, the police had probable cause to arrest him and conduct a search incident to that arrest. We agree with the district court's finding that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment have been met.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.