1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3219

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * J. C. Collins, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 17, 2007 Filed: June 14, 2007

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. A grand jury indicted J.C. Collins for conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine in violati on of 21 U.S.C. § 846, money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), a nd conspiracy to launder drug proceeds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Prior to hi s trial, Collins filed a motion to suppress the currency seized both from his person and a Federal Express package addressed to him. The district court 1 denied the motion to suppress and the jury returned a guilty-2- verdict against Collins on all counts. The district judge imposed a sentence on Collins of life imprisonment. Collins now appeals fro m the conviction, raising the sole issue of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we affirm. Collins argues that police unlawfully se ized from a Mail Boxes Etc. store a Federal Express package addressed to hi m by removing it to the loading dock and performing a canine sniff. He also conte nds that police lacked reasonable suspicion to seize the package after the dog alerted to the presence of contraband. These arguments lack merit. We assume, without deciding, that removal of the package constituted a seizure for Fourth Amendm ent purposes, but conclude reasonable suspicion supported the removal. Reasonable su spicion exists when there is sufficient evidence at the time of the se izure for a reasonable officer to suspect that the package contained contraband. United States v. Zacher , 465 F.3d 336, 338 (8th Cir. 2006). In the instant case, prior to arriving at the store, police (a) understood that a known drug supplier (the sender) was sendi ng cash, for at least the second time in consecutive weeks, via Federal Express, (b) knew this was a common method of exchanging drug sale proceeds, and (c) po ssessed reliable information that Collins, also a known drug supplier, had previously used Western Union for such purpose. This information created reasonable suspicion to justify the brief seiz ure, if any, of the package on the loading dock and the canine’s s ubsequent alert servedto permit seizing the package while the officers obtained a warrant for its search. Seeid. at 339 (finding dog’s alert created reasonable suspicion to permit seizure). Collins also argues that on October 13, 2003, police unlawfully seized approximately $11,000 in cash from his person at the Little Rock airport. Collins maintains that although he consented to a pat-down search, the incriminating nature of the money found during the pat-down was not immediately apparent. We disagree.-3- Police had ample information that Collins had been traveling in central Arkansas collecting money from drug debts and would be flying from Little Rock to California with the proceeds on his person. Considering the information police knew at the time of the search, it became imme diately apparent that the approximately $11,000 in cash on Collins’s person was incriminating. SeeUnited States v. BustosTorres , 396 F.3d 935, 945 (8th Cir. 2005) (concluding wad of paper money felt during pat-down search immediately apparent as incriminating considering circumstances leading to stop).
For these reasons, the district court properly rejected the motion to suppress.

______________________________