United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ Nos. 97-1471EA, 97-1654EA

_______________________

_____________ * * No. 97-1471EA *

_____________ * * United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * * Jimmy Bartlett, * * Appellant. * On Appeal from the United * States District Court

_____________ * for the Eastern District * of Arkansas. No. 97-1654EA *

_____________ * * United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * * Russell Lance Bartlett, * * Appellant. *The Hon. Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Arkansas. -2- ___________ Submitted: September 11, 1997 Filed: September 19, 1997

___________ Bef ore RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON and BEAM , Circuit Judges.

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. App ellants Jimmy Bartlett and Russell L. Bartlett entered conditional pleas o f guilty to drug charges and were sentenced. They now bring these appeals, contending that the District Co urt erred in denying their motion to suppress certain evidence that 1 the government would have introduced against them if the case had gone to trial.
The que stion presented is the validity of the search warrant under which th e evidence in question was seized. In brief, the facts are t hese. Federal and state agents, work ing together, obtained a search warrant for premises described as "TH E PREMISES KNOWN AS the Jim Bartlett resi dence at 402 Quarry Road, Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas . . .." In attempting to execute the warrant, the agents went by mistake to another hous e, located at 406 Quarry Road. Upon realizing that they were at the wrong house, the agents proceeded to the right location, 402 Quarry Road, and secured the premises. Believing that it would be prudent to do so, they then obtained a second search warrant , containing better directions to the right address. There is no question that the first warrant was, or would have been, valid. The contention is-3-

pressed, how ever, that the search was conducted pursuant to the second warrant, and that it was not valid.
The second w arrant was identical to the first warrant in most respects. Th e crucial difference, according to appellants, was that certain phrases contained in th e firstwa rrant were omitted from the second warrant. The first warrant contained th e following statement:

This search warrant is to pertain to th e aforementioned residence, the aforementioned storage area and to include the curtilage, and al l purtenances thereto, and all vehicles under his control in Pope County in the State of Arkan sas, there is now being concealed certain property , namely: methamphetamine . . .. In the second war

rant, everything in this passage up to the words "in Pope County" is leftout. The second warrant plainly includes an incomplete sentence, and no on e reading it could fail to realize that certain material had been omitted. It seems virtually certain that the omission was a clerical error, made by someone on a typewriter or, perhaps, a computer. In any cas e, the second warrant, like the first, co mmanded

the officers to "search forthwith the Person/Premises named for th e property herein specified . . .." The second warrant, like the first, clearly referred to the Bartlett residence at 402 Quarry Road, a nd to a storage area near the house. Thus, even if the omission of the language in question from the second warrant is given full e f fect, the second warrant still unmistakably authorizes a search of 402 Quarry Road and of the storage area. Whenviewed in context, the issue presented on appeal is wholly withou t substance. Both warrants were valid. Even if, as appellants claim, we should disregard the first warrant, and consider the case as if on ly the second warrant were material, the-4-

or der of the District Court denying the motion to suppress must stand. The secon d warrant de scribed the premises, including the residence and the storage area, with particularity, and authorized the off icers to search them for certain described property. This is what the officers did, and we find no fault in their conduct. The judgments are affirmed. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.