Case ID: f-appx_147/html/0689-01.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. Mark Warner PEACOCK, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-10402.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.
    
    Decided Sept. 22, 2005.
    Joseph Edward Koehler, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John D. Kaufman Fax, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mark Warner Peacock appeals his jury-trial conviction and 84r-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Peacock contends that the district court erred in determining there was probable cause for his arrest and that as a result, he was entitled to suppression of all evidence seized after his arrest. We disagree. The underlying facts support the officer’s belief that there was a fair probability that Peacock was purchasing a firearm for a known felon. See United States v. Mayo, 394 F.3d 1271, 1276 (9th Cir.2005). Because the arrest was lawful, the district court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence, and we affirm his conviction. See United States v. Barrera-Medina, 2005 WL 1620504 at *2-3 (9th Cir. July 7, 2005).

We remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Appellant’s July 30, 2005, motion to consider Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), is denied.