
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie David ZAMARRIPA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30324.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 3, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 8, 2011.
    James A. Goeke, Assistant U.S., USYA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kraig Robert Gardner, Rebecca Louise Pennell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDWAID-Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: NOONAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and GUILFORD, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eddie David Zamarripa (“Zamarripa”) entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in -violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the firearm that police officers found during an investigative stop. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, while reviewing for clear error the underlying factual findings. United States v. Davis, 530 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir.2008).

The investigative stop was supported by reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may have been afoot. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The officers had reason to believe that Zamarripa (a) resembled a car-prowl suspect; (b) had just banged on a car and invited its occupants to fight; (c) was wearing a gang-related head covering in an area known for gang activity; and (d) had previously been associated with gang activity in the area. Considering the totality of the circumstances, these facts were enough to support an investigative stop. See United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir.2009) (“Reasonable suspicion is formed by specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal activity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The frisk was also justified. The officers were aware of Zamarripa’s recent, aggressive encounter with a car and were outnumbered by Zamarripa and his companions. Moreover, the area where the stop occurred was known for gang-related violence, Officer Salinas recognized Za-marripa as having connections with a gang from a previous interaction, and Zamarri-pa was wearing a color claimed by the Norteño gang in Yakima. Based on these facts, the officers reasonably suspected that Zamarripa may have been armed and dangerous. See Johnson, 581 F.3d at 999.

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