The Ho norable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for th e 1 East ern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of th e Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., U nited States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2664

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Gregory J. Martin, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 22, 1998 Filed: November 3, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gregory J. Martin appeals his conviction, upon his conditional guilty plea, fo r possessing cocaine wit

h intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). For reversa l, he argues that the district court erred in denying his pretrial motion t o 1 suppress evidence. We affirm.-2-

Martin had moved to suppress evidence seized purs uant to state search warrants for premises at 1804 and 1812 West 10th Street in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. In an affidavit supporting the warrants, a police detective attested that a confidential informant (CI) told him the following: Martin had returne d from Los Angeles on May 19 with a large quantity of cocaine; Martin lived at 1804 West 10th Street; the drugs were being kept in that house or a vacant house next door at 1812 West 10th Street, where Martin often kept his “supply”; and both houses were owned by Martin’s family. The officer further attested, inter alia, that the CI had proven to be “very reliable” in the past by making co ntrolleddrug purchases from four dealers and assisting police in six felony dru g cases ; that in each of those cases, “the information from the CI proved to be true and valuable to the ca se”; and that the officer had confirmed Martin’s mother owned both properties. Martin argues the affidavit did not establ ish probable cause, in that it failed to set forth sufficient facts bearing upon the reliability of the CI.
We review for clear error a district court’s decision not to suppress evidenc e obtained during the execution of a search warrant. See United States v. Mahler , 141 F.3d 811, 813 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , No. 98-5079, 1998 WL 396473 (U.S. Oct. 5 , 1998). A n issuing judge’s determination of probable cause for the warrant is entitled to great deference. See United States v. Wright , 145 F.3d 972, 975 (8th Cir.), cert
. denied , No. 98-5857, 1998 WL 596683 (U.S. Oct. 5, 1998). The “core question” in assessing whether information provided by a CI establishes probable cause is whether the inform ation is reliable. See United States v. Williams , 10 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993). Reliability can be established if the CI has a history of providing la w enforcement officials with truthful information. See United States v. For maro , 152 F.3d 768, 770 (8th Ci r. 1998); Wright , 145 F.3d at 975. "The statements of a reliable [CI] are themselves sufficient to support probable cau se for a search warrant." Wright , 145 F.3dat 975 (citations omitted). Because the officer’s attestations regarding the CI’s past assistance sufficiently established the reliab ility of the CI, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in denying Martin’s motion to suppress.-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.