Banyavong

MEMORANDUM ***

Thipthavanh Banyavong appeals his conviction by conditional guilty plea for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). Banyavong *368 claims that the district court erred when it found (1) that the Contra County Sheriffs Deputies conducted a valid traffic stop and (2) that the deputies saw a gun in plain view sticking out from underneath the driver’s seat of Banyavong’s BMW. He also challenges the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause.

The parties do not dispute the legal standard for searches and seizures. If police officers are lawfully engaged in an activity in a particular place (such as a valid traffic stop) and they see an incriminating object in plain view, they may seize it without a warrant. See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 739 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983). We review the factual findings of the district court for clear error. United States v. Depew, 210 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir.2000). Findings based on credibility of witnesses are peculiarly within a trial judge’s province and are entitled to…