FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 12 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 06- 1372 0 D. C. Docket N o. 04-00531 CR-06-O DE -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JOSE ANGEL ALVA REZ-LOPEZ, a. k.a. Par iente, a. k. a. Jor ge Q uin te ro , a. k.a. Jose Alvare z, a. k. a. A rt ur o Q uin te ro -P en o, a. k. a. Jor ge Q uin te ro -S an toy o, D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia (J un e 12, 200 7) Before DU BIN A and BLA CK, Circuit Judges, and RE ST AN I, * Judg e.

____ ____ ____ ____ __ *Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , sitti ng by desig nation.2

PE R CU RIA M: Af ter a trial by

j ury , a ppellant Jo se Angel A lvarez- Lopez ( the “ defendant”)
w a s c o n v i c t e do f

v a r i o u s d r

u g t r a f f i c k i n g c r i me s a n dw i t h p o s s e s s i o n o f f i r e a rms in fur th eran ce o f th e d ru g t raff ic ki ng cri m es . T he de fe nda nt p re se nts the f oll ow ing iss ue s f

or appe lla te r ev ie w : ( 1)
w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing the de fe nda nt’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s
ev i d en ce ; an d(2 ) w h et h ert h e e v i d en ce wa s s u ff i ci en tt o s u s t ai n t h e d ef

en d an t ’s
co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of f ire arm s i n fu rth eran ce o f a d ru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e.

“ In review ing a district court’s r uling on a m otion to supp ress, we review fi ndi ngs of

f ac t f or c le ar e rr or a nd the appl ic at ionof

la w to tho se f

ac ts de novo .” U nit ed Sta tes v . M

art ine lli , 454 F
. 3d 1 300, 130 6 ( 11t h C ir
. 200 6) ; see also United States v. Jim inez , 224 F. 3d 12 43, 1247 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). Whe re ade fe nda nt f

ai ls t o m ove f

or aj udgm en t of

a cquit ta l a t the c los e of al l of the e vid en ce in the c as e, w e w ill r ev er se the c onvi ct iononl y to pr ev en t a
m an ife st m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. U nit ed Sta tes v . M

ilk intas , 470 F
. 3d 1 339, 134 3 (11th Cir. 2006). A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , a nd h av ing the be ne fi t of or al a rg um en t, w e co nc lud e tha t the re is no m er it to any of the arg um en ts th e d efen da nt m ak es in th is ap pe al
.3

Fi rs t, w e co nc lud e tha t, e ve n if w e ex cl ude tho se f

ac ts c ont es te d by

the defendant, the search w arrant affidavit contains enou gh inform ation that reliance on i t w oul d ha ve be enr ea sona ble
. T he re fo re , w e hol d th at the se ar ch w ar

rant af fi da vit c ont ai ne d su ff

ic ie nt p ro bable c au se to j ust if y the se ar ch a t i ssu e an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr

in de ny ing the de fe nda nt’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s. Second, w e conclude from our reviewof the rec ord that there w as m ore than suf fi ci en t e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al to sus ta in the de fe nda nt’ s c onvi ct ionf or poss es sio n of

f ir earm s inf

urthe ranc e of

adr ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m e. F or

the se
re as ons, w e af

fi rm the de fe nda nt’ s c onvi ct ion s. AFFIRMED.