United States v. Michael Nelson

facts through the lens of the agents’ experience, the facts present were sufficient to

establish reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop. See United States v.

Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (holding that we must view the facts as a whole);

see also United States v. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074, 1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (en

banc) (holding that “a truck with foreign plates driving in a suspicious manner in

an area frequented by smugglers” supported reasonable suspicion).

2. The district court properly denied Nelson’s motion to dismiss. We apply

a two-part test to evaluate whether the government’s removal of an undocumented

immigrant witness violated the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process or

the Fifth Amendment right to due process: (1) the defendant must make an initial

showing that the government acted in bad faith, and (2) the defendant must

demonstrate that removal of the witness prejudiced his case. United States v. Leal-

Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964, 969–70 (9th Cir. 2012). Nelson has never argued that

the government acted in bad faith when it removed four potential witnesses.

Accordingly, this claim fails. Because bad faith is a threshold question, we…