United States of America v. Charley William Ellison, Jr.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, Senior United States District Judge
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLEY WILLIAM ELLISON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50646
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01292-CAS-1
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 2, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, Circuit Judge and
WHYTE, District Judge. **
Because an informant who gave accurate information in the past may be
presumed trustworthy, even with the informant’s criminal history included, the
FILED
AUG 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
affidavit would have supported a finding of probable cause. United States v.
Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1396–97 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, the district court
did not err in denying Ellison’s motion to suppress physical evidence and motion
for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). See United
States v. Reeves, 210 F.3d 1041, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Meling,
47 F.3d 1546, 1554–56 (9th Cir. 1995).
Ellison’s statement “should I have a lawyer,” even considered in light of his
stated desire to avoid self-incrimination, was not an unequivocal request for
counsel. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 461–62 (1994); United States
v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179, 1186–88 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court did not err
in denying Ellison’s motion to suppress statements made after his arrest.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --