MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Hector Ruiz-Ber-nal appeals his conviction and sentence, following his conditional guilty plea to possessing more than five kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(ii). Defendant argues that the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained after his vehicle was stopped by Border Patrol agents on the Interstate 15 freeway. Defendant challenges whether the agents had reasonable suspicion to effect the stop.

This Court reviews a district court’s determination of reasonable suspicion de novo, “reviewing findings of historical fact for clear error and giving due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.” United States v. Valdes-Vega, No. 10-50249, 738 F.3d 1074, 1077, 2013 WL 6768095, at *2 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2013) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The agents observed the defendant driving northward on Interstate Highway 15, in “an area where narcotics and alien smuggling frequently occurs.” Among other suspicious circumstances, the defendant was smoking a cigarette and driving with all of his windows rolled down despite cold, damp weather, behaviors that the officers, based on their experience and training, reasonably believed were consistent with those of smugglers trying to remove odors emanating from illegal substances. The defendant’s vehicle was in a law enforcement database that indicated that “the vehicle might be involved in narcotics smuggling through ports of entry.” Moreover, upon seeing the agents’ vehicle, the defendant engaged in evasive driving tactics, including a marked reduction of his speed to fifteen miles per hour below the posted speed limit.

In light of the totality of these circumstances, and giving due weight to the agents’ experience and reasonable deduc *673 tions, this Court finds that the district court did not err in concluding that the Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop of the defendant’s vehicle. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002); Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d at 1077-80, 2013 WL 6768095, at *2-4.

AFFIRMED.