UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 95-5627

SHAWN JEROME ALLEN, a/k/a Rashon

Allen, a/k/a Allen Rashon,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CR-94-135)

Submitted: April 16, 1996

Decided: May 23, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Melvin LeRoye Hill, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.

Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Joseph W.H. Mott, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Appellant, Shawn Allen, appeals the district court's order

denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a drug raid

on a house occupied by Allen. Allen argues that the recovered evidence should have been excluded because the underlying search violated the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. 1 According to

Allen, all the evidence obtained in the search should have been suppressed because the police failed to announce the purpose of their

visit and wait for refusal of admittance before they entered the house.

We disagree. It is well established that non-compliance with

"knock and announce" requirements may be excused where exigent

circumstances render strict compliance imprudent. 2 Here, the Government provided evidence that the officers needed to act quickly to protect themselves from possible harm. The officers had a report from a

confidential informant that firearms were recently observed inside the

home, although not during the latest visit. A check of Allen's criminal

history revealed convictions for several robberies, criminal possession

of a weapon, assault, resisting arrest, rape, and several drug offenses.

Given Allen's extensive violent criminal history the officers could

reasonably infer that Allen might attempt to use the observed firearms

against the officers if given the opportunity. Under the circumstances

of this case,3 particularly Allen's extensive record for violence, the

district court did not clearly err in finding it reasonable for the police

to believe that they would be in danger unless they executed a "noknock" search warrant.4

Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in denying

the Appellant's motion to suppress. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

_________________________________________________________________

1 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (1988) (codification of "knock and announce" rule).

2 United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876, 882 (4th Cir. 1994), cert.

denied, 63 U.S.L.W. 3563 (U.S. Jan. 23, 1995) (No. 94-6500).

3 Id.

4 United States v. Bernard, 757 F.2d 1439, 1443 (4th Cir. 1985).

 2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

 3