Betancourt

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellants, Danica Betanc-ourt and Christine Granillo, pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(i). They appeal *710 the district court’s denial of their motion to suppress and grant of the government’s motion to quash a subpoena. Betancourt appeals also her sentence. The parties are familiar with the facts so we proceed to the law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The Motion to Suppress

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, and we review for clear error its factual findings. United States v. Summers, 268 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir.2001). Whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect is a mixed question of law and fact and is reviewed de novo. United States v. Thomas, 863 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1988).

The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that a fact-specific reasonableness inquiry is appropriate for Fourth Amendment questions. See Ohio v. Robi-nette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 , 117 S.Ct. 417 , 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996). Therefore, we examine the “totality of the circumstances”…