N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. FR ANC ISC O FELIX, AKA Pa c o, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. Nos. 19-10047

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00040-W B S-1 M EM O R ANDUM * Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m B . Shubb, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 13, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

n d R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd W HALEY, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED JAN 15 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R obe rt H. W

ha l e y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.Afte r te n m o nths of inve stiga ting a drug-tra ffic k i ng ope ration in C e n tra l C a lifornia , la

w e nforc e m e nt offic e rs sought a nd re c e ive d

distric t c o urt a uthoriz ation to wire t a

p two c e ll phone s c onne c te d to Appe lla nt Fra nc i sc o Fe lix. The a udio re c ordings tha

t the wire ta

p y ie lde d prove d quite dam ning to Fe lix, who wa s c onvic te d by a jury

for va rious drug-tra ffic king offe nse s a nd se n te nc e d to 240- m onths im

p risonm e nt. Fe lix now a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss the wire ta

p e vide nc e , a

rguing tha

t la w e nforc e m e nt fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t a wire ta p wa s ne c e ssa

ry to a c hie ve the obje c tive s of its inve stiga tion. Fe lix a lso a

rgue s, for the first tim e on a ppe a l, tha t 18 U.S.C . § 2518’ s ne c e ssity

re quire m e nts a

re unc onstitutiona

l a s a pplie d to him . The distric t c o urt ha d jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 3231. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm . W e a pply a two-tie re d sta

nda rd of re vie w to a

distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion to suppre ss wire t a p e vide nc e tha

t hinge s on a

finding of ne c e ssity . W e re vie w de novo whe the r the wire ta p a p plic ation c onta ine d a

“ full a nd c o m ple te sta te m e nt of the fa c ts” to support the re que st unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2518(1)(c ). Unite d State s v . Riv e ra , 527 F.3d 891, 898 (9th C ir. 2008). If thea ffidavit’ s sta te m e nt of fa c t s is suffic ie nt, we re v ie w the distric t c ourt’ s ne c e ssity de te rm inat ion for a

buse of disc re tion. U

n ite d State

s v . Ly n c h , 437 F.3d 902, 912 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba nc ) 2(pe r c uriam ). B e c a use Fe lix c ha lle nge s the distric t c o urt’ s ne c e ssity

de t e rm ination, we will only re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision if it wa s “ i llogic a l, im pla u sible , or without support in infe

re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from

the re c ord.” Se e Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). The distric t c ourt prope rly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t ne c e ssity e x iste d to a

uthoriz e the wire ta

p. W ire ta p s a re an “ unc onve ntiona l m e thod” of inve s tiga

t ion a nd a substa ntia l priva c y

intrusion. Se e Unite d State s v . Gonzale z, Inc . , 412 F.3d 1102, 1110 (9th C ir. 2005). For tha t re a son, a

wire ta p a pplic ation m

ust de m onstra

t e tha t “ tra ditiona l inve stiga

tive proc e dure s (1) ha

ve be e n trie d and fa ile d ; (2) re a sona

bly a ppe ar unlike ly

to suc c e e d if trie d ; or (3) a re too da nge rous to try .” Id. at 1112. As the distric t c ourt found, thesixty -pa ge a ffidav it a

tta c he d to thewire ta

p a pplic ation he re m e t tha

t sta nda rd. Although the use of tra ditiona l inve stiga tive te c hnique s — inc luding c onfide n t ia l inform an ts—

wa s m o de rate ly suc c e ssful in unc o ve ring som e of Fe lix’ s lowe r-le ve l a ssoc iate s a

nd his m arijua

na -growing ope rations, the ir c ontinue d use wa s unlike ly to produc e e vide nc e of the ope ration’ s fina nc e s, its fore ign c rim ina l c onne c tions, or its m e tha

m phe tam ine distribution network. Fe lix’ s c onte ntion tha

t he would ha

ve e ve ntua lly

re ve a le d tha

t inform ation to a n inform ant ha d the gove rnm e nt “ c ontinue [d] to purc ha se a dditional multi3pound qua

ntitie s of m e tha

m phe tam ine an d m arijua

na ” is spe c ulative and be lie d by the a ffidavit. W e re vie w the a ffidavit “ a s a whole , a nd in a c om m onse nse fa shion.” Unite d State s v . Mc Guire , 307 F.3d 1192, 1198 (9th C ir. 2002). A holistic re vie w of the a ffidavit re v e a ls se ve ra l re a sons why this inform ant wa s unlike ly to re c e ive high-le ve l inform ation from Fe lix: (1) theinsula

r nature of the drug-tra ffic king ope ra t ion m a de i t unlike l y that Fe lix would re ve a l suc h inform ation to a ny one but loy a l fam ily m e m

be rs or c lose fam ily

frie nds; (2) theorga

niz ation, like

othe r drug c onspira c ie s, wa s c o m

pa rtm e nta liz e d to re stric t a c c e ss to theinform ation inve stiga tors sought; a

nd (3) Fe lix’ s tie s to viole nt fore ign c arte ls thre ate n e d inform an ts’ sa fe ty . Thus, thedistric t c ourt re a sona

bly de te rm i ne d tha

t the c ontinue d use of tra ditiona l inve stiga tive m e thods we re unlike l y to be suc c e ssful. Se e Gonzale

z, Inc . , 412 F.3d a

t 1112. Ne xt, Fe lix ha s forfe i te d his c onstitutiona l c la im by fa iling to raise it be fore the d istric t c o urt. As a

ge ne ra l rule , we will not ente rta in a n a rgum e nt ra ise d for the first tim e on a

ppe a l. Single ton v . W

ulff , 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976); Unite d State s v . Gardne r , 107 F.3d 1314, 1320 (9th C ir. 1997). A de fe nda nt who fa ils to bring a n a rgum e n t in a

m o tion to suppre ss m

u st de m o nstra

te good c a

use for suc h fa ilure . Unite d State

s v . Gue rre ro , 921 F.3d 895, 898 (9th C ir. 2019) (pe r c uriam ) (c iting Fe d. R . C rim . P. 12(c )(3)). Fe lix ha s not shown good c a use for his fa ilure 4to ra ise this a rgum e n t e arlie r. He argue s , in pa ssing, tha t the c l a im

is “pure ly le ga l” and re late s to his underly ing m otion to suppre ss. B ut m e re l y sta ting the nature of the c la im

— le ga l ve rsus fa c tua l— d oe s not e xpla in why he did not ra ise the a rgum e nt to thedistric t c ourt. The re have be e n no inte rve ning c ha nge s in the la w or fa c ts tha

t pre ve nte d him

from ra ising thec la im

e arlie r. Ac c ordingly , we ne e d not re a c h the m e rits of Fe lix’ s c onstitutiona l c la im . R e ga rdle ss, Fe lix’ s c onstitutiona l c la im is fore c lose d by our de c ision in Unite d State s v . Forre ste r , 616 F.3d 929, 944–45 (9th C i r. 2010). The re , we he ld that “ the sta nda rds se t forth in [18 U.S.C .] § 2518, whic h do not re quire a showing of e xige nt c irc um sta

nc e s,” are c onstitutiona

l unde r the Fourth Am e ndm e n t. Forre s te r , 616 F.3d a

t 945. Fe lix a c knowle dge s tha t his a rgum e nt “ ha s be e n re je c te d by a

thre e -judge pa

n e l of this C ourt” but ha s not pre s e nte d a ny inte rve ning a uthority tha t c onflic t s with Forre

s te r . Nor ha

ve we found a

ny . W e are , the re fore , bound by tha t de c ision, a

nd Fe lix’ s c onstitutiona

l c la im fa ils. AFFIRM E D.

5