Doan

MEMORANDUM **

Jeremy Doan appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress ammunition — evidence that he claimed was the fruit of an unlawful stop and frisk. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Doan first argues that the district court erred by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. We review the denial of an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. United States v. DiCesare, 765 F.2d 890, 895 (9th Cir.1985). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion because Doan failed to allege a factual dispute with the requisite clarity or definiteness. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir.2000) (“An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress need be held only when the moving papers allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist.”). Indeed, in Doan’s reply memorandum, he stated “The government’s response provides no new facts or law justifying [the] detention or search.” While Doan did challenge the legal significance of certain facts, a district court need not hold an evidentiary…