Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nasir ABDUL-ALI also known as, Donald Ray Reed, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-09
Citations: 222 F. App'x 397
Docket Number: No. 06-60166
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nasir ABDUL-ALI also known as, Donald Ray Reed, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 397–398

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nasir ABDUL-ALI also known as, Donald Ray Reed, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-60166.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 9, 2007.
Robert Henry Norman, William Chadwick Lamar, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for PlaintiffAppellee.
C. Jackson Williams, Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nasir Abdul-Ali appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm.
The parties and the district court, under our decision in United States v. Pigrum, 922 F.2d 249, 252 (5th Cir.1991), focus on whether the officers relied in good faith upon the search warrant, rather than addressing whether probable cause supported the warrant. This is a unique situation in which the easier question is whether probable cause supported the warrant; we hold that it did. Officer Jones, the search warrant affiant, followed Abdul-Ali from the house at 100 February Street, witnessed the controlled sale, and followed Abdul-Ali back to the general location of the house. These facts supply probable cause to believe that Abdul-Ali stashed drugs in the house.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.