Case ID: f-appx_322/html/0532-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. LE HUA WU, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Khang Trong Nguyen, a.k.a. Seal B, Alex, Defendant—Appellant.
    Nos. 07-50547, 07-50555.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 15, 2009. 
    
    Filed April 17, 2009.
    
      Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Kevin Scott Rosenberg, Esq., Rosalinda Wang, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ken K. Behzadi, Esq., Law Offices of Ken K. Behzadi, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellants Le Hua Wu and Khang Nguyen challenge the district court’s denial of their motion to suppress evidence obtained through several wiretaps, and the district court’s denial of their request for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978).

The district court properly denied Appellants’ motion to suppress, as the wiretap affidavits provided the requisite full and complete statement that alternative “investigative techniques were exhausted before the wiretap order was sought or that such methods reasonably appeared unlikely to succeed or too dangerous.” United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 898 (9th Cir.2008) (citation omitted).

The district court correctly denied Appellants’ request for a Franks hearing, as Appellants failed to demonstrate “that the wiretap applications] contained false statements or material omissions[.]” United States v. Lococo, 514 F.3d 860, 864 (9th Cir.2008), as amended (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.