Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher N. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-18
Citations: 357 F. App'x 55
Docket Number: No. 08-30419
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher N. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 55–56

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher N. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30419.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 3, 2009.
Filed Nov. 18, 2009.
Jo Ann Farrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Heather Gardner, Law Offices of Heather L. Gardner, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Christopher Neil Smith appeals his conviction for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 841, 846. We affirm.
Smith asserts that his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated when a package in the mail was inspected and searched. We disagree. There was no delay of delivery beyond the guaranteed delivery time, and there is no privacy interest in the writing on the outside of a package or in the smells it exudes. Moreover, probable cause existed before the package was opened pursuant to a warrant, and the failure of the affidavit in support of the warrant to mention an informant's tip, which helped lead to scrutiny of the outside of the package, was not a misrepresentation. In fact, it was not relevant because that minim fact would support rather than detract from the grounds for the warrant. The district court did not err.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. See United States v. Jefferson, 566 F.3d 928, 933-35 (9th Cir.2009); United States v. Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir.2007).
. See Jefferson, 566 F.3d at 933.
. See id.; see also Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 408-410, 125 S.Ct. 834, 837-38, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005).
. See Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d at 1158, 1162.
. See United States v. Johns, 948 F.2d 599, 606-07 (9th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d 710, 714-15 (9th Cir.2003).
. See Johns, 948 F.2d at 607.