Alduenda-Medina

MEMORANDUM **

Silverio Alduenda-Medina appeals his conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Alduenda-Medina first challenges his conviction by arguing that he was arrested without probable cause. A canine sniff alone can supply probable cause, so long as there is proof of “the dog’s reliability.” United States v. Lingenfelter, 997 F.2d 632, 639 (9th Cir.1993).

In this case, there was evidence that the canine was both “certified [and] reliable.” United States v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir.2003). In addition to testimony from the law enforcement officer working with the canine, the district court was provided with a letter demonstrating that the canine was certified in detecting marijuana, and was also provided with several pages of information related to the training which resulted in the dog’s certification.

Alduenda-Medina argues that he was entitled to further discovery related to the reliability of the canine. The United *660 States needed to provide only “certification documents [and] the dog’s training materials and records.”…