Hanft

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Dougles Hanft appeals his conviction for manufacturing marijuana in *513 violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

First, Hanft argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in connection with his arrest. Hanft contends that the arrest and the subsequent issuance of two warrants to search his home and the surrounding premises lacked probable cause. He further argues that a search of a vehicle parked in his driveway exceeded the scope of the first warrant, and that the second warrant was stale. We disagree.

We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo, and underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Becker, 23 F.3d 1537, 1539 (9th Cir.1994). Probable cause to arrest is present if, “at the moment of arrest, facts and circumstances within [the officers’ knowledge] and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the arrested person had committed or was committing an offense.” United States v. Rodriguez,…