Case ID: f-appx_265/html/0566-01.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. Justin D. SHERRARD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-30019.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
    Marcia Good Hurd, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    John P. Rhodes, Esq., Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Justin D. Sherrard appeals from the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress following which, after a bench trial, the district court found Sherrard guilty of receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sherrard contends that the evidence collected, as well as the statements he made, during the search of his house should be suppressed because the search violated the Fourth Amendment and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. We disagree. We are unpersuaded by Sherrard’s reliance on United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 126 S.Ct. 1494, 164 L.Ed.2d 195 (2006), and Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004), and so we affirm the district court’s orders.

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