FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50646
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01292-CAS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLEY WILLIAM ELLISON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 2, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, Circuit Judge and
WHYTE, District Judge.**
Because an informant who gave accurate information in the past may be
presumed trustworthy, even with the informant’s criminal history included, the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, Senior United States District Judge
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
page 2
affidavit would have supported a finding of probable cause. United States v.
Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1396–97 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, the district court
did not err in denying Ellison’s motion to suppress physical evidence and motion
for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). See United
States v. Reeves, 210 F.3d 1041, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Meling,
47 F.3d 1546, 1554–56 (9th Cir. 1995).
Ellison’s statement “should I have a lawyer,” even considered in light of his
stated desire to avoid self-incrimination, was not an unequivocal request for
counsel. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 461–62 (1994); United States
v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179, 1186–88 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court did not err
in denying Ellison’s motion to suppress statements made after his arrest.
AFFIRMED.