United States v. Eddie Paulino

memorandum:

Eddie Paulino appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). We affirm. Because the par ties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court did not err in denying Paulino’s motions to suppress evidence based on its finding that exigent circumstances justified law enforcement officers’ warrantless entry of his residence. Exigent circumstances justify a warrant-less entry when “officers, acting on probable cause and in good faith, reasonably believe from the totality of the circumstances that ... evidence or contraband will imminently be destroyed.... ” United States v. Ojeda, 276 F.3d 486, 488 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The government bears the burden of showing specific and articulable facts to justify the finding of exigent circumstances.” Id.

Here, the district court properly determined that the officers had probable cause to believe the package of sham methamphetamine was in Paulino’s residence. The officers saw Paulino leave with the package, followed him as he drove with the…