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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 17 2012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