UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10377

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:20-cr- 00204-GMN- v. EJY-1 XZAVIONE TAYLOR, OPINION Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 7, 2022 San Francisco, California

Filed March 1, 2023

Before: Daniel A. Bress and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges, and Jane A. Restani, * Judge.

Opinion by Judge Bress

* The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 2 UNITED STATES V. TAYLOR

SUMMARY **

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered following a traffic stop, and remanded for the district court to conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement of sentence, in a case in which Xzavione Taylor entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The panel held that the officers did not unreasonably prolong the traffic stop. The panel wrote: • An officer’s asking Taylor two questions about weapons early in the counter—once before the officer learned that Taylor was on federal supervision for being a felon in possession and once after—was a negligibly burdensome precaution that the officer could reasonably take in the name of safety. • An officer did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop when he asked Taylor to exit the vehicle. • The officers’ subjective motivations are irrelevant because the Fourth Amendment’s concern with reasonableness allows certain actions to be taking in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent. • A criminal history check and the officers’ other actions while Taylor was outside the car were within the lawful scope of the traffic stop. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. TAYLOR 3

• Even if, contrary to precedent, the frisk and criminal history check were beyond the original mission of the traffic stop, they were still permissible based on the officers’ reasonable suspicion of an independent offense: Taylor’s unlawful possession of a gun. As to whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched Taylor’s car, the panel held that the district court did not err in finding that Taylor unequivocally and specifically consented to a search of the car for firearms. Taylor conceded that precedent forecloses his constitutional challenge to a risk-notification condition of supervised release. The panel remanded for the district court to conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement of conditions concerning outpatient substance abuse treatment and vocational services programs.

COUNSEL Aarin E. Kevorkian (argued) and Raquel Lazo, Assistant Federal Public Defenders; Rene L. Valladares, Federal Public Defender; Federal Public Defender’s Office; Las Vegas, Nevada; Erin Michelle Gettel, Snell & Wilmer, Las Vegas, Nevada; for Defendant-Appellant. Peter H. Walkingshaw (argued), James Alexander Blum, and Robert Lawrence Ellman, Assistant United States Attorneys; Elizabeth O. White, Appellate Chief; James M. Frierson, United States Attorney; Office of the United States Attorney, District of Nevada; Reno, Nevada; for Plaintiff-Appe