
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel RAMIREZ-ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30335.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 7, 2013
    
    Filed March 14, 2013.
    Scott Kerin, Jane Hawkins Shoemaker, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gary Bertoni, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, 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 James C. Mahan, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Angel Ramirez-Arroyo appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a series of wiretaps.

1. Each of the government’s wiretap affidavits contained “a full and complete statement” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c) by discussing normal investigative procedures that had been tried and failed, reasonably appeared unlikely to succeed if tried, or were too dangerous. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). Each affidavit properly incorporated previous affidavits, see United States v. Garcia-Villalba, 585 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir.2009), and provided case-specific explanations for the use, limitations and rejection of various traditional surveillance tactics in the investigations of specific individuals. See id. at 1229-30.

2. Based on the sufficient factual matter contained in each supporting affidavit, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the wiretaps, including the extensions, were “necessary” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c). United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 898, 903 (9th Cir.2008).

3. Accordingly, it was proper for the district court to deny appellant’s motion to suppress. See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1234 (9th Cir.2004).

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