Skavinsky

MEMORANDUM *

Appellants Thomas J. Skavinsky, Sr., and Thomas J. Skavinsky, Jr., appeal their convictions for distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Skavinsky, Jr., also appeals his sentence.

Skavinsky, Sr.

Skavinsky, Sr., appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered pursuant to the search conducted at his home on June 26, 1997. He argues that exigent circumstances did not exist that would justify executing the warrant before knocking and announcing the presence of police officers.

The district court detailed five facts that it found combined to support a determination of exigency. The facts found by the district court and relied upon by the officers contribute to the officers’ reasonable belief that they or the defendants would be endangered by an ordinary knock-and-announce search. Where specific facts give rise to a reasonable suspicion that knocking or announcing would be dangerous or futile, exigent circumstances exist. See United States v. Reilly, 224 F.3d 986, 991 (9th Cir.2000) (exigent circumstances exist where officers know that resident is suspected drug dealer, has…