NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHARLES ROLAND CHEATHAM , Defendant

- Appellant

. No. 19

- 30294
D.C. No. 2:18

- cr - 00131

- RAJ

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal f rom the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 13 , 2021 Seattle, Washington
Before: EBEL * * , BEA, and V AN D YKE , Circuit Judges.
In this direct criminal appeal, Defendant

- Appellant Charles Cheatham challenges his convictions for 1) conspiring to distribute controlled substance s , 2) carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug

- trafficking crime , and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

SEP 3 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 3) conspiring to commit money laundering. Cheatham challenges the district court’s decision to deny his motions to suppress and raises three grounds for relief: First, that there was inadequate probable cause underlying a tracking warrant for
two of his phones; second, that there was inadequate probable cause underlying a wiretap for one of his phones; and third, that the wiretap’s “necessity” requirement was not met. (E.R. 50, 128

– 34). On all issues, we affirm. 1
1. We review de novo the district cour t’s rulings as to whether probable
cause was proven, see United States v. Dixon , 984 F.3d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 2020), but review the magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause for “clear error,” see United States v. Tan Duc Nguyen , 673 F.3d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir. 2012). We agree
with the district court that t he magistrate judge issuin g the t racking warrant for Cheatham’s cell phones, Target Telephones (“TT”) 14 and 15, did not clearly err in determining that there was probable cause

— a “fair probability” based on the totality of the circumstances

— to believe tracking Cheatham’s phones w ould result in the discovery of evidence of a crime

. United States v. Elmore , 917 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983))

. Specifically, while tapping the cell phone of Michael Morgan, the already
identified leader of a drug

- trafficking organization ( “ Morgan DTO”), police intercepted a call between Morgan and Cheatham

. A lthough vague and brief, that

1 We GRANT the Government’s unopposed motion to take judicial notice.3 intercepted conversation was sufficient to provide the necessary probable cause,
when considered in the context of several other intercepted phone calls that Morgan made during th at same time period . Furthermore, the sworn affidavit from a drug task force officer (“TFO”), based on his training and experience, explain ed that during those calls Morgan was seeking to collect drug sale proceeds.
2. The magistrate judge also did not clearly err in determining t hat there was probable cause to believe that a wiretap on Cheatham’s TT1 5 would result in the discovery of evidence that he was committing , had committed, or was about to
commit a drug

- trafficking crime. See 18 U.S.C. § § 2516(1)(e), 251 8 ( 3 ) (a)

. T he
TFO’s sworn affidavit submitted in support of the application for the wiretap order included information that linked Cheatham to drug

- trafficking gen erally , as well as
information specifically linking him to the Morgan DTO.
3. On the necessity issue, we review de novo whether the government provided a full and complete affidavit as required under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c),

see United States v. Christie , 825 F.3d 1048, 1066 (9th Cir. 2016), but review for abuse of discretion whether the district court properly determined that the wiretap
was necessary, see United States v. Barragan , 871 F.3d 689, 700 (9th Cir. 2017).
The TFO’s affidavit submitted in support of the wiretap on Cheatham’s TT1 5 adequately established the necessity for that wiretap, as 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) requires. T he affidavit both sufficiently detailed the other investigative technique s4 law enforcement had already emplo yed to investigate Cheatham and the Morgan
DTO , to which Cheatham was linked, and sufficiently explained why those investigative technique s w ere ineffective , unlikely to succeed, or too dangerous to accomplish the investigation’s objectives. See United St ates v. Estrada , 904 F.3d 854, 862

– 65 (9th Cir. 2018). Based on th e information in the affidavit , t he district
court did not abuse its discretion in determini n g , under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c), that
the wiretap was necessary.
AFFIRM ED

.