United States v. Leconte Oneal , 468 F. App'x 729 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              FEB 17 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 11-10075
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00275-WHA-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    LECONTE ONEAL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted February 13, 2012
    San Francisco, California
    Before: GRABER, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    Defendant Leconte Oneal appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine
    base with intent to distribute, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1). He challenges
    the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a
    warrantless probation search. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Franklin, 
    603 F.3d 652
    , 655 (9th Cir. 2010), we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    1. The police officers had probable cause to believe that Defendant resided
    in room 310 of the Windsor Hotel. A known informant, speaking face to face with
    police, told them that Defendant was selling drugs at that address. The informant
    gave Defendant’s name, full address, and birth year. He/she was credible because
    he/she used drugs and thus was familiar with sellers, and he/she was specifically
    told that there would be no leniency for revealing information. Police corroborated
    the tip through the facts that the sole occupant of the room in question had the
    exact birth date of Defendant, that he had a prior criminal drug record, and that the
    hotel was known for drug selling. See generally United States v. Bishop, 
    264 F.3d 919
    , 924–26 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing the factors for reliability of an informant’s
    tip).
    2. For similar reasons, the police officers had reasonable suspicion to
    believe that Defendant had violated the terms of his probation by selling drugs.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-10075

Citation Numbers: 468 F. App'x 729

Judges: Graber, Berzon, Tallman

Filed Date: 2/17/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024