Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02691/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02691-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Mark Files
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2691

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Charles Mark Files, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 21, 2006

Filed: February 27, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After the district court1

 denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his

home pursuant to a search warrant, Charles Mark Files conditionally pleaded guilty

to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced him

to 120 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, he challenges

the denial of his motion to suppress. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-2691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013941
-2-

Having reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal

conclusions de novo, see United States v. Williams, 431 F.3d 1115, 1117 (8th Cir.

2005), we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Files’s suppression

motion. The affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant application did not

violate Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and the affidavit established

probable cause because it sufficiently corroborated the information that informants

had provided to police, the information it contained was not stale, and it adequately

connected Files’s criminal activity outside his home to a reasonable belief that

contraband would be found inside his home.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013941