United States v. Arthur Hobbs

70 F.3d 1280 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur HOBBS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-50063. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 14, 1995. * Decided Nov. 24, 1995. Before: FARRIS, BRUNETTI and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Arthur Hobbs appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . 3 We affirm. I. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 4 Hobbs argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress cocaine seized during a warrantless search of his suitcase. A consensual search is an exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). "Whether a defendant consented to a search is a question of fact reviewed for clear error." United States v.…