Bowen

MEMORANDUM *

The district court, upon remand from this court for an evidentiary hearing, see United States v. Bowen, 175 Fed.Appx. 155 -56 (9th Cir.2006), adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and denied Parrish Bowen’s (“Bowen”) motions to suppress both physical and testimonial evidence. Bowen appeals the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress after having entered a conditional guilty plea to posses *469 sion with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) — (b)(l)(A)(ii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s denials of the motions to suppress de novo, and the factual findings underlying its rulings for clear error. United States v. Miranda-Guerena, 445 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

Bowen contends that the district court erred in denying the motions to suppress. We disagree. The record supports the district court’s conclusion that the initial traffic stop was lawful. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); United States v. Willis, 431 F.3d 709, 715 (9th Cir.2005). Police may detain a stopped motorist, consistent with the…