Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kali Lotoaiki LAULEA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 652 F. App'x 590
Docket Number: No. 14-10555
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kali Lotoaiki LAULEA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and CALLAHAN and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 652
Pages: 590–591

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kali Lotoaiki LAULEA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10555
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016 Honolulu, Hawaii
FILED June 21, 2016
Mark Alexander Inciong, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Marc A. Wallenstein, DOJ — Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., Matthew R. McLain, Attorney, Brownstone Law Firm, P.A., Winter Park, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and CALLAHAN and MURGUIA, 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
Kali Lotoaiki Laulea appeals his conviction of two counts of distribution of five grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(B), and one count of distribution of fifty grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(A). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here. We review the district court's ruling on a motion to suppress de novo and the district court's factual findings for clear error. United States v. Kahre, 737 F.3d 554, 564 (9th Cir. 2013).
The district court did not err in denying Laulea's motion to suppress the evidence seized after the traffic stop and arrest. The officer testified that on the day of the traffic stop, he attended a joint operational briefing where he was shown Laulea's photograph and was informed that Laulea lacked a valid driver's license. Approximately one hour later, the officer observed the same person he had seen in the photograph driving a vehicle previously associated with Laulea. Given the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that Laulea was driving without a valid license in violation of Haw.Rev.Stat. § 286-102. See United States v. Miranda-Guerena, 445 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, the stop of Laulea's vehicle was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Willis, 431 F.3d 709, 715 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.