UNITED STATES v. LOBOS AKA AKA AKA AKA (2018)

MEMORANDUM ***

Edgar Lobos appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence relating to his possession of a gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we AFFIRM.

Lobos first contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying him an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. We are not persuaded. “An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress need be held only when the moving papers allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist.” United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir. 2000). Lobos’s bare contention that he “did not waive [his] Miranda rights during questioning” is a legal conclusion and is insufficient to demonstrate that a factual dispute exists. See United States v. Rodriguez, 518 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings concerning the words a defendant used to invoke his Miranda rights for clear error and whether the words actually invoked those rights de novo.”); cf. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that, to demonstrate a material fact dispute “[t]o defeat summary judgment, [a party] ‘must respond with more than mere ․ legal conclusions’ ” (quoting Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 1986) ) ).

Lobos next argues that the district court should have suppressed the evidence that he was in possession of a gun and his statement that he owned the gun because the Government lacked probable cause to arrest him. We disagree. A woman alleged she was raped and provided a precise and accurate description of Lobos. That description together with her later photo identification of Lobos were enough to assure a prudent person that there was a “fair probability” that Lobos was the rapist. United States v. Gonzales, 749 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir. 1984). This is so even assuming the identification process was suggestive. Once the victim confirmed that the person shown in the photos of Lobos was her assailant, and given that he matched her prior description, the officers had probable cause to arrest him.

AFFIRMED.