Norris

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Norris (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (k) and 924(a)(1)(B) for possessing a firearm with an altered or obliterated serial number, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the seized firearm. The facts and procedural history are known to the parties and repeated here only as necessary. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress de novo. United States v. Enslin, 327 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.2003). We review the underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Amano, 229 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir.2000).

Appellant argues that the Tohono O’Odham police officers exceeded their constitutional authority when they frisked and briefly detained him. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), police officers may stop a person and briefly conduct an investigation if they have reasonable suspicion the person may be involved in criminal activity. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177, 185 , 124 S.Ct. 2451 , 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004). Whether there was a reason *228 able suspicion for the stop must be evaluated by looking at the totality of the…