Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LE HUA WU, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Khang Trong Nguyen, a.k.a. Seal B, Alex, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-17
Citations: 322 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: Nos. 07-50547, 07-50555
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. LE HUA WU, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Khang Trong Nguyen, a.k.a. Seal B, Alex, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 322
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. LE HUA WU, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Khang Trong Nguyen, a.k.a. Seal B, Alex, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 07-50547, 07-50555.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 15, 2009.
Filed April 17, 2009.
Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Kevin Scott Rosenberg, Esq., Rosalinda Wang, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ken K. Behzadi, Esq., Law Offices of Ken K. Behzadi, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellants Le Hua Wu and Khang Nguyen challenge the district court's denial of their motion to suppress evidence obtained through several wiretaps, and the district court's denial of their request for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978).
The district court properly denied Appellants' motion to suppress, as the wiretap affidavits provided the requisite full and complete statement that alternative "investigative techniques were exhausted before the wiretap order was sought or that such methods reasonably appeared unlikely to succeed or too dangerous." United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 898 (9th Cir.2008) (citation omitted).
The district court correctly denied Appellants' request for a Franks hearing, as Appellants failed to demonstrate "that the wiretap applications] contained false statements or material omissions[.]" United States v. Lococo, 514 F.3d 860, 864 (9th Cir.2008), as amended (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.