Medina-Gallegos
United States v. Medina-Gallegos
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Salvador Medina-Gallegos appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence in connection with his prosecution for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vin), and for being an alien in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(5). Because Medina-Gallegos was sentenced for these crimes under the formerly mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines), he also seeks a limited remand of his case pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 *769 F.3d 1073 (9th. Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
I
We review de novo the district court’s denial of Medina-Gallegos’s motion to suppress. See United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2004). We review for clear error the district court’s finding that Medina-Gallegos voluntarily consented to the search of his motel room and car. See United States v. Cormier, 220 F.3d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir.2000). Under the clear error standard, we defer to the district court’s finding so long as it was “plausible.” See SEC v. Rubera, 350 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2003).