Conley
United States v. Conley
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
1. The district court did not err by denying in part Conley’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from his home. For the reasons identified by the district court, the officers’ warrantless entry was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and the scope of the search did not exceed the exigencies justifying its initiation. See Murdock v. Stout, 54 F.3d 1437, 1442-43 (9th Cir.1995).
2. The district court did not err in determining that Conley was subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1), because he was previously convicted of crimes punishable, under Oregon statute, “by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” See United States v. Murillo, 422 F.3d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1928 , 164 L.Ed.2d 677 (2006). Moreover, Conley’s conviction for assault is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year under the Oregon Sentencing Guidelines, entirely independent of the statutory maximum penalties prescribed by Oregon’s criminal code. See Ok. Admin. R. 213-008-0005(l)(c).
3. Because Conley’s assault conviction is a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year under Oregon law, and…