Alleva

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Paul Alieva raises three challenges to his judgment of conviction for various smuggling-related offenses. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

1. Alieva first argues that the evidence against him should have been suppressed because the Border Patrol agent who stopped him lacked reasonable suspicion. Following United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273-74 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002), we hold that the totality of the circumstances supported the stop. Alieva argues that his stop was unconstitutional because the agent’s observations all have potentially innocent explanations, but when “the data in the record seems equally capable of supporting an innocent explanation as a reasonable suspicion .... [we] give due weight to the factual inferences drawn by law enforcement officers.” United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.2007). Affording due weight to the judgment of the Border Patrol agent and considering the totality of the circumstances on which he relied, we *178 affirm the district court’s denial of Alieva’s motion to suppress.

2. Alieva next challenges the admissibility under the Federal Wiretapping Statute of recorded…