# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**_____________** No. 23

- 50834 **consolidated with** No. 23

- 50837

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Jonathan David Anderson,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 1:22

- CR

- 43

- 1, 1:22

- CR

- 203 -1

**______________________________** Before **Elrod, Oldham, an** d **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Jonathan David Anderson entered a conditional guilty plea to possessi on with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The district court sentenced him to 90 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release

. As a consequence of this new violation, Anderson’s supervised release term for a

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 11, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50834 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2024No. 23

- 50834 c/w No. 23

- 50837

2 prior methamphetamine trafficking conviction was revoked , and he was sentenced to 20 months of imprison ment , to run consecutively to his
sentence for the new § 841 conviction. In these conso lidated appeals, Anderson appeal s his new § 841 conviction and the revocation of his supervised release . However, because Anderson’s appellate brief does not address the validity of the revocation or the revocation sentence, he has abandoned any challenge to the revocation judgment. See United States v. Still , 102 F.3d 118, 122 n.7 (5th Cir. 1996) ; Beasle y v. McCotter , 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986)

. As part of his conditional guilty plea, Anderson reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence recovered from a warranted search of his h otel room. Anderso n argues that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should not apply because the affidavit offered in support of the search warrant was bare bones in that it was based upon statements made by insufficiently reliable informants or wholly unident ified sources. When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we “review questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” United States v. Gentry , 941 F.3 d 767, 779 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Contrary to Anderson’s arguments, the affidavit supporting the search warrant was not bare bones. Under the totality of the circumstances,

see United States v. Fisher , 22 F.3d 5 74, 578 (5th Cir. 1994), the affidavit provided more than conclusory statements, including that the primary confidential informant had provided reliable and credible information in previous narcotics investigations and that the informant had observed metha mphetamine in the hotel room within the 24

- hour period preceding the execution of the affidavit, see United States v. McKnight , 953 F.2d 898, 904

– 05 (5th Cir. 1992) ; see also Christian v. McKaskle , 731 F.2d 1196, 1198, 1200 Case: 23-50834 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2024No. 23

- 50834 c/w No. 23

- 50837

3 (5th Cir. 1984)

. Given that aff idavits must be construed “in a common sense manner,” United States v. Jackson , 818 F.2d 345, 348 (5th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), with great deference to an issuing judge’s determination of probable cause, United States v. May , 819 F.2d 531, 535 (5th Cir. 1987), the district court did not err in finding that the affidavit in the instant case was not bare bones, see Gentry , 941 F.3d at 780; McKnight , 953 F.2d at 905. Accordingly, the district court’s judgments are **A FFIRMED** 

. Case: 23-50834 Document: 71-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/11/2024