Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sid Edward WILLIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sid Edward Willis, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-29
Citations: 610 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: Nos. 13-30376, 13-30377
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sid Edward WILLIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sid Edward Willis, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 696–697

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sid Edward WILLIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sid Edward Willis, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 13-30376, 13-30377.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 4, 2015.
Filed July 29, 2015.
Scott Kerin, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tonia Louise Moro, Tonia L. Moro Attorney At Law PC, Medford, OR, for Defendant-Appellant. ''
Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In this consolidated appeal, Sid Willis, Jr. challenges .the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence in case number 3:12-cr-00292, and its imposition of a 60-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release in case number 3:02-cr-00120. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not err in denying Willis's motion to suppress. The detention of Willis that resulted in the officers' discovery of the relevant evidence was a valid investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The aggressive means the officers used to stop Willis were justified and did not convert the detention into an arrest because the officers had information that Willis was currently armed, the stop closely followed a violent crime, and Willis fled upon seeing the officers' vehicle. See United States v. Edwards, 761 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir.2014); cf. Green v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 751 F.3d 1039, 1047-48 (9th Cir.2014). Willis concedes that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop him. The stop therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 990-91 (9th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. We resolve Willis's challenge to his sentence in a concurrently issued opinion. United States v. Willis, -F.3d-- (9th Cir.2015).