United States of America v. Ryan Jason Wall

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United States District Judge for***
the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RYAN JASON WALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10220
D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00025-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Guam
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 12, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, District
Judge.***
FILED
APR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Ryan Wall (“Wall”) appeals his convictions for conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine and attempted possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress because the search by customs officials of his DHL package was not a
permissible border search or extended border search, and the search warrant was so
lacking in probable cause that customs officials could not rely on it in good faith.
Because the search was a permissible extended border search, we affirm the district
court’s order without reaching Wall’s other arguments.
We review de novo the legality of a border search. United States v. Romm,
455 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court’s factual findings are
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Camacho, 368 F.3d 1182, 1183 (9th Cir.
2004).
An extended border search is permissible even without a warrant if (1) under
the totality of the circumstances it is reasonably certain that the contraband subject
to search crossed the border and (2) the search is supported by reasonable
suspicion. United States v. Sahanaja, 430 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing
United States v. Cardona, 769 F.2d 625, 629 (9th Cir. 1985)). First, the totality of
the circumstances test is met here because Wall’s DHL package was in the custody
of customs officials or DHL agents at all times, and it is evident that the contents

-- 2 of 3 --

3
were undisturbed between the time the package physically entered Guam and the
time it was searched. See Cardona, 769 F.2d at 629 (totality of circumstances test
met where parcel was in custody of Federal Express agents). Second, customs
officials had reasonable suspicion to believe the package contained contraband
based on (1) the tip from the informant who met face-to-face with agents; (2) the
package labeling; (3) the manner in which the package was taped; (4) the
inconsistency between the label and the contents revealed through x-ray; and (5)
the x-ray, which revealed a suspicious substance consistent with contraband. Thus,
the extended border search was permissible.
Furthermore, Wall’s argument that customs officials missed their chance to
search Wall’s DHL package when they transferred the package to DHL, a private
shipping company, is misplaced. That a cursory search or no search occurred at
the time of the initial border crossing does not prevent later searches from coming
under the rules of border searches. See United States v. Ogbuehi, 18 F.3d 807, 813
(9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --