United States of America v. SID EDWARD WILLIS, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SID EDWARD WILLIS, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-30376
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00292-BR-1
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SID EDWARD WILLIS, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-30377
D.C. No. 3:02-cr-00120-BR-1
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 4, 2015
Portland, Oregon
FILED
JUL 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
In this consolidated appeal, Sid Willis, Jr. challenges the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress evidence in case number 3:12-cr-00292, and its
imposition of a 60-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release
in case number 3:02-cr-00120.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not err in denying Willis’s motion to suppress. The
detention of Willis that resulted in the officers’ discovery of the relevant evidence
was a valid investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The
aggressive means the officers used to stop Willis were justified and did not convert
the detention into an arrest because the officers had information that Willis was
currently armed, the stop closely followed a violent crime, and Willis fled upon
seeing the officers’ vehicle. See United States v. Edwards, 761 F.3d 977, 982 (9th
Cir. 2014); cf. Green v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 751 F.3d 1039, 1047–48
(9th Cir. 2014). Willis concedes that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop
him. The stop therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Gallegos v.
City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 990–91 (9th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.
1 We resolve Willis’s challenge to his sentence in a concurrently issued
opinion. United States v. Willis, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. 2015).

-- 2 of 2 --