United States v. Juan Antonio Medina-Ortiz

993 F.2d 886 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Antonio MEDINA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-50546. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 7, 1993. * Decided May 11, 1993. Before: KOZINSKI, SUHRHEINRICH ** and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM *** 2 After conditionally pleading guilty to importation and possession of marijuana, Medina-Ortiz appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He argues the district court should have suppressed the marijuana because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the car which was carrying it. Medina-Ortiz also argues the court erred in imposing a fine as part of his sentence. 3 A. While we review the existence of reasonable suspicion de novo, e.g., United States v. Hernandez-Alvarado, 891 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir.1989), we review the factual findings underlying it only for clear error, e.g., Guam v. Ichiyasu, 838…