Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leconte ONEAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-17
Citations: 468 F. App'x 729
Docket Number: No. 11-10075
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leconte ONEAL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: GRABER, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 729–730

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leconte ONEAL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-10075.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 13, 2012.
Filed Feb. 17, 2012.
Benjamin Patrick Tolkoff, Barbara Valli-ere, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Geoffrey A. Hansen, Chief Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GRABER, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Leconte Oneal appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrant-less probation search. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Franklin, 603 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir.2010), we affirm.
1. The police officers had probable cause to believe that Defendant resided in room 310 of the Windsor Hotel. A known informant, speaking face to face with police, told them that Defendant was selling drugs at that address. The informant gave Defendant's name, full address, and birth year. He/she was credible because he/she used drugs and thus was familiar with sellers, and he/she was specifically told that there would be no leniency for revealing information. Police corroborated the tip through the facts that the sole occupant of the room in question had the exact birth date of Defendant, that he had a prior criminal drug record, and that the hotel was known for drug selling. See generally United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 919, 924-26 (9th Cir.2001) (discussing the factors for reliability of an informant's tip).
2. For similar reasons, the police officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Defendant had violated the terms of his probation by selling drugs.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.