United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit _____________

No. 23-50834

consolidated with

No. 23-50837

_____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jonathan David Anderson, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeals 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, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jonathan David Anderson entered a conditional guilty plea to 

possession 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: 07/11/2024
No. 23-50834

c/w No. 23-50837

2

prior methamphetamine trafficking conviction was revoked, and he was 

sentenced to 20 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to his 

sentence for the new § 841 conviction. In these consolidated appeals, 

Anderson appeals 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); Beasley 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 hotel room. Anderson 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 unidentified 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.3d 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 574, 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 

methamphetamine 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: 07/11/2024
No. 23-50834

c/w No. 23-50837

3

(5th Cir. 1984). Given that affidavits 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 AFFIRMED.

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