Weyne

MEMORANDUM **

Ibrahim Weyne appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to suppress and motion to dismiss for prosecuto-rial vindictiveness. Because the search of Weyne’s car was a valid inventory search and because Weyne failed to show an appearance of prosecutorial vindictiveness, we affirm.

“We review de novo motions to suppress, and any factual findings made at the suppression hearing for clear error.” United States v. Negrete-Gonzales, 966 F.2d 1277, 1282 (9th Cir.1992). We review *261 de novo motions to dismiss an indictment for vindictive prosecution. United States v. Jenkins, 504 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.2007).

As an initial matter, we hold that Weyne is not precluded from arguing that the search at issue in this case violated the Fourth Amendment. Even if “a claim [was] not raised by petitioner below, we would ordinarily feel free to address it, since it was addressed by the court below. Our practice ‘permit[s] review of an issue not pressed so long as it has been passed upon....’” Lebron v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 379 , 115 S.Ct. 961 , 130 L.Ed.2d 902 (1995) (quoting United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 41 , 112 S.Ct. 1735 , 118 L.Ed.2d…