Daniels
United States v. Daniels
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Dionta D. Daniels appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a firearm following the entry of a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The district court’s crediting of Officer Baptista’s testimony was not clearly erroneous. Although other witnesses’ testimony contradicted Officer Baptista’s, the district court’s decision to credit Officer Baptista was plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety; therefore, we may not reverse. Phoenix Eng’g & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court, considering the totality of the circumstances, correctly concluded that the officers had probable cause to believe Daniels was living at the searched residence. See United States v. Mayer, 530 F.3d 1099, 1104-05 (9th Cir.2008). Daniels had previously reported to the Parole Office that he resided at the searched residence, which “provid[ed] some basis for the officers to believe that he might be residing there again.” 1 Id. at 1104 .