United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50738

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jimel Edward Harris, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:20-CR-122-1 

Before Smith, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jimel Harris entered a conditional guilty plea of possession with intent to 

distribute a quantity of 5F-AMB, otherwise known as “synthetic marihuana,” 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Harris appeals the district 

court’s decision not to suppress the evidence of a search. Because the district 

court did not plainly err, we affirm. 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 9, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50738 Document: 00516640552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023
No. 21-50738

2

I.

Per a state-issued search warrant containing allegations from a confidential informant that Harris possessed crack cocaine, law enforcement searched a 

hotel room where Harris was present. The search yielded 6.9 ounces of synthetic marihuana, cash, cell phones, and a digital scale with cocaine residue.

Harris moved to suppress all evidence seized. He posited that the search

warrant affidavit was “bare bones,” so the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply, and that the issuing judicial officer lacked a substantial 

basis for believing there was probable cause for the search. In his report and 

recommendation, the federal magistrate judge denied Harris’s motion, finding 

that the good faith exception applied because the warrant was more than bare

bones. The report stated that a confidential informant had contacted the affiant 

detective, had previously provided reliable information, was familiar with 

cocaine, and had seen cocaine in Harris’s hotel room within the previous fortyeight hours.1

1 The affidavit stated, in pertinent part,

Within the 48-hour period preceding the preparation of this affidavit, your

Affiant received information from a reliable and confidential informant

. . . . Your affiant knows the informant has provided information in the 

past which has proven reliable and credible. The informant has provided 

your affiant and other police officers with information in the past which

has lead [sic] to arrests of person(s) for narcotics related offenses including 

offenses involving cocaine. The informant has demonstrated to your affiant that they know what cocaine looks like, how it is sold, how it is used, 

how it is packaged, and understand the various quantities and weight of 

cocaine as it is trafficked on the street. The informant has provided your 

affiant with information documented in this affidavit which your affiant 

verified through independent investigation.

Within the 48-hour period preceding the preparation of this affidavit, a

Confidential Informant (CI) working for the Killeen Police Department

Organized Crime Unit had observed a quantity of Cocaine, described by 

the CI as several crack rocks inside the [hotel room]. The CI said he/she 

Case: 21-50738 Document: 00516640552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2023
No. 21-50738

3

No party filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s report, and finding 

no clear error, the district court adopted the report and denied the motion to 

suppress. Harris entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. He timely appeals.

II.

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review legal 

questions de novo and factual findings for clear error. United States v. Gentry, 

941 F.3d 767, 779 (5th Cir. 2019). We view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party; here, that party is the government. See 

United States v. Cantu, 230 F.3d 148, 150 (5th Cir. 2000). We may uphold 

the district court’s decision “on any basis established by the record.” United 

States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 405 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Despite being notified of the consequences of failing to raise timely 

objections, Harris concedes he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation. Thus, our review is for plain error. See Puckett 

v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To establish plain error, Harris 

must show a clear and obvious error that has not been affirmatively waived 

and affects his substantial rights. Id. Even if he makes that showing, we use 

our discretion to correct the error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the 

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

III.

We look to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an 

affidavit is bare bones. United States v. Fisher, 22 F.3d 574, 578 (5th Cir. 

1994). And our judgment is made “in a common sense manner.” United 

has also identified Jimel Edward Harris, a black male, date of birth 

[**/**/****] by the use of un-named photographs.

Case: 21-50738 Document: 00516640552 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2023
No. 21-50738

4

States v. Jackson, 818 F.2d 345, 348 (5th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). “‘Bare bones affidavits typically contain wholly conclusory statements, which lack the facts and circumstances from which a 

magistrate can independently determine probable cause.’” Gentry, 941 F.3d 

at 780 (quoting United States v. Pope, 467 F.3d 912, 920 (5th Cir. 2006)); see 

also United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1992) (approving 

of an affidavit that “provided the magistrate with facts, and not mere conclusions”). Nevertheless, an issuing magistrate can draw reasonable inferences 

from the affidavit, and the ultimate determination of the affidavit’s sufficiency is entitled to great deference on review. United States v. May, 819 F.2d 

531, 535 (5th Cir. 1987).

Through a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry, the affidavit here

provided more than conclusory statements or boilerplate. The affidavit 

averred that the confidential informant had provided reliable and credible 

information in previous narcotics investigations and had observed crack 

cocaine in the hotel room within the 48-hour period before execution of the 

affidavit. See United States v. McKnight, 953 F.2d 898, 904–05 (5th Cir. 1992)

(approving an affidavit as sufficient to support the good faith exception on 

similar facts). The affidavit provided specific facts and circumstances that 

allowed the issuing judge to make a probable cause determination regarding 

the search of the hotel room.

Because affidavits must be construed in a common-sense manner, 

with great deference given to the issuing judge’s probable-cause determination, we cannot reason that the district court erred, plainly or otherwise, in 

finding that the affidavit in the instant case was not bare bones. Therefore, 

the executing officer’s reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable and 

made in good faith, so the district court was correct to deny Harris’s motion 

to suppress the evidence on that ground. See Gentry, 941 F.3d at 780. We

Case: 21-50738 Document: 00516640552 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/09/2023
No. 21-50738

5

therefore need not reach the issue of whether the warrant was supported by 

probable cause. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50738 Document: 00516640552 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/09/2023