USA v. Matthew Noland

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 16, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-14702
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-60344-CR-KAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MATTHEW NOLAND,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 16, 2010)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Noland appeals his conviction following a guilty plea pursuant to a

-- 1 of 3 --

conditional written plea agreement for possession with intent to distribute cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). On appeal, he argues that law
enforcement officials lacked probable cause to arrest him, and therefore, evidence
of the cocaine discovered on his person when he was arrested should be
suppressed.
We affirm, finding no reversible error in the district court’s finding that law
enforcement officials had probable cause to arrest Noland. The facts indicated that
Noland had been present at a meeting where agents discussed purchasing
marijuana with Bryan Roth and Duane Levindowski. A previously reliable
informant then informed the agents that “Matt,” was a pool cleaning partner with
Roth and a possible supplier of cocaine to Roth. Noland later drove Roth to a
meeting where Roth sold the agents 100 ecstasy pills. When Roth’s apartment was
placed under surveillance, Noland was observed there prior to Roth’s call to the
agents arranging to sell them more drugs. At one point, Noland was observed
getting out of his car, concealing a small white object under his shirt and walking
into Roth’s apartment after Roth had arranged to get more drugs for the agents. A
short time later Roth exited carrying a red and white package and entered his car.
After Roth was arrested at the meeting, Noland “agitated[ly]” called Roth’s cell
phone repeatedly within a short period of time. Under the totality of the
2

-- 2 of 3 --

circumstances, the cumulative weight of all of these observations is sufficient to
support probable cause to arrest Noland on the belief that he had committed a
crime. Accordingly, his arrest was lawful and the cocaine found on his person was
admissible into evidence incident to his lawful arrest.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --