Zepeda-Orozco

MEMORANDUM **

Humberto Zepeda-Orozco appeals his conviction and claims that the fruits of the search of his truck should have been suppressed. 1 We affirm.

(1) Zepeda first asserts that, regardless of how egregiously the district court erred when it first ruled on the suppression motion, the law of the case doctrine precluded it from reconsidering and reaching the opposite conclusion. That is not the law. See City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 386, 390 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Emens, 565 F.2d 1142, 1144-45 (9th Cir.1977); cf. United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997) (a clearly erroneous ruling is a basis for reconsideration). Thus, we cannot say that the district court erred in reconsidering its ruling on the suppression motion.

(2) If we assume that the border patrol officers did detain Zepeda, 2 we agree with the district court that there was reasonable suspicion so to do. See United States v. Diaz-Juarez, 299 F.3d 1138, 1141 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)…