
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles Thomas Wilmer WEEMS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-30011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2011.
    Alexander C. Ekstrom, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USYA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kraig Robert Gardner, Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendantr-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The government appeals from the district court’s order granting defendant Charles Weems’ motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a vehicle search incident to his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, and we vacate the order and remand for reconsideration.

The government concedes that the search of Weems’ vehicle after he was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car was unconstitutional under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), but contends that it was permissible under the good-faith exception for searches conducted in reliance on binding precedent. The Supreme Court recently held that “searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.” Davis v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2428-29, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011). The search of Weems’ vehicle occurred prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gant, and was conducted in compliance with New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), which was binding appellate precedent at the time of the search. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for the district court to reconsider its order in light of Davis.

The government’s request for a stay is denied as moot.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     