Clements

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher Clements appeals the district court’s decision denying his motion to suppress. We affirm, and deny Clements’ request for a limited remand for resen-tencing.

The officers had reasonable suspicion to search the residence of Clements, a probationer. In United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 121 , 122 S.Ct. 587 , 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001), the Court held that “no more than reasonable suspicion” is required to conduct such a search. Clements cites no authority, and the court knows of none, holding that in Nevada a warrant is required to search the residence of a probationer where reasonable suspicion exists. Further, Clements’ arrest did not terminate the officers’ right to conduct such a search. See Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 252 (9th Cir.1975) (holding that a “parole officer’s interest in inspecting [the parolee’s] place of residence did not terminate upon his arrest; if anything, it intensified”).

There was no dispute of fact as to whether reasonable suspicion existed. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Clements’ request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d…