Howe

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Dale Howe entered a conditional guilty plea to burglary within Indian country in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (b) and Mont.Code Ann. § 45-6-204(1). Howe contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress a prescription bottle, belonging to an employee of the burglary victim, found on his person. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. United States v. Davis, 530 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir.2008). We review any underlying factual findings for clear error. Id. We may affirm a district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record, even if that basis differs from the reasoning of the district court. Atel Fin. Corp. v. Quaker Coal Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).

Howe argues that, under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and to conduct a pat down search of his person. Howe further argues that, even if reasonable suspicion were present, the pat down exceeded the scope of a permissible search.

However, our review of the record satisfies us that probable…