MEMORANDUM ***

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

*643 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.