15-41 13

Unite d Sta tes v . Cas tro



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C O URT O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E S E C O

ND C I R C U I T



## S UM M AR Y O RD E R

R U L I N G S B Y S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E P R E C E D E N T I A

L E F FE C T

. C I T

A T I O N T O A S U

M M A R Y O R D E R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S P E R M I T T E D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D B Y F E D E R

A L R U L E O F A P P E L L

A T E P R O C E D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L O C

A L R U L E 32.1.1. WHE N C I T I N G A S U M M A R Y O R D E R I N A D O C U M E N T F I L E D W I T H T H I S C OUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N

D I X O R A

N E L E C T R O N I C DA T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y O R D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I N G A S U

M M A R Y O R D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E P R E S E N T E D B Y C OU

N S E L

.

At a state d ter m of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals for t he Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in t he Ci ty of New York, on th e 17 day of Ja nuary , two thou sand seven teen.

th

PRESE NT: DENNI S JAC OBS,

ROBER T D. SACK, SUSAN L. C ARNEY ,

Circu it Ju dges,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X UNITE D STA TES O F AME RICA,

Appel lee,

-v.- 15-41 13

JOSE CASTRO,

Defen dant- Appel lant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

FOR A PPELL ANT: MATTH EW B. LARS EN, F edera l Defen ders of Ne w Yor k, Ne w Yor k, NY.

FOR A PPELL EE: NOAH SOLOW IEJCZ YK (w ith K arl Metzn er on the brief ), fo r Pre et Bhara ra, U nited Stat es At torne y

1for t he So uther n Dis trict of N ew York, New York, NY.

Appea l fro m a j udgme nt of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Court for the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork ( Schof ield, J.).

UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJU DGED AND D ECREE D that the judgm ent o f the dist rict court be AFFIR MED

.

Jose Castr o app eals from the j udgme nt of the Unite d State s Dis trict Cour t for the South ern D istri ct of New York (Scho field , J.) . A jury convi cted Castr o of trans porti ng, recei ving, and posse ssing chil d por nogra phy. The distr ict court sent enced Cast ro ch iefly to s ix ye ars i n pri son a nd eight year s of super vised rele ase. We a ssume the parti es’ famil iarit y wit h the unde rlyin g fac ts, t he pr ocedu ral histo ry, a nd th e iss ues p resen ted f or re view.

Castr o cha lleng es th e aff idavi t off ered in su pport of the s earch warr ant a pplic ation . Th e aff idavi t ave rred that

a com puter prog ram u sed b y law enfo rceme nt to moni tor trans missi on of chil d por nogra phy h ad do wnloa ded f our f iles of ch ild p ornog raphy from a co mpute r loc ated at Ca stro’ s home. Cas tro a rgues that ther e was seri ous r eason to d oubt that the d ownlo ads e ver t ook p lace, and that had t he doubt ful c ircum stanc es be en di sclos ed in the affid avit, the magis trate judg e wou ld no t hav e fou nd pr obabl e cau se suffi cient to j ustif y a s earch warr ant.

Castr o arg ues t hat t hese omiss ions warra nt su ppres sion of ev idenc e. S ee Fr anks v. De lawar e, 43 8 U.S . 154 (197 8). “To s uppre ss ev idenc e obt ained purs uant to an affi davit conta ining erro neous info rmati on, t he de fenda nt mu st sh ow that: ‘(1) the claim ed in accur acies or o missi ons a re th e resul t of the a ffian t’s d elibe rate false hood or re ckles s disre gard for t he tr uth; and ( 2) th e all eged false hoods or omiss ions were neces sary to th e [is suing ] jud ge’s proba ble

cause find ing.’ ” Uni ted S tates v. C anfie ld, 2 12 F. 3d 71 3, 717-1 8 (2d Cir. 2000 ) (qu oting Unit ed St ates v. Sa lameh , 152 F.3d 88, 1 13 (2 d Cir . 199 8)).

“[W]h ether a pe rson acted with ‘rec kless disr egard for the t ruth’ is ‘ a fac tual quest ion o f int ent, and w e there fore revie w the cour t’s d ecisi on fo r cle ar
error ’ . . . .” Uni ted S tates v. R ajara tnam, 719 F.3d 139, 153 ( 2d Ci r. 20 13) ( quoti ng Un ited State s v. Trzas ka, 1 11

2F.3d 1019, 1028 (2d Cir. 1997) ). T he “f actfi nder may i nfer

reckl ess d isreg ard f rom c ircum stanc es ev incin g obv ious

reaso ns to doub t the vera city of th e all egati ons.” Id. at 154 ( quoti ng Un ited State s v. Whitl ey, 2 49 F. 3d 61 4, 62 1 (7th Cir. 2001) ). C astro cont ends that such circu mstan ces are p resen t her e. T he af fiant test ified that her usual pract ice w hen i nvest igati ng re ports from the compu ter progr am at issu e in this case was t o rev iew c opies of t he downl oaded file s in an au tomat icall y cre ated folde r. A t

some point afte r thi s war rant was i ssued , the affi ant attem pted to re view the e xpect ed fo lder, but was u nable to locat e it. Cas tro s ugges ts th at th e aff iant’ s ina bilit y to locat e the fold er af ter t he wa rrant issu ed re veals that she could not locat e the fold er be fore prepa ring the a ffida vit, which shou ld ha ve gi ven h er re ason to do ubt t he ac curac y of the r eport . He argu es th at th e fac tfind er sh ould have infer red f rom t hese circu mstan ces t he af fiant ’s re ckles s disre gard of th e tru th.

The d istri ct co urt r eject ed th is ar gumen t, co nclud ing that the a ffian t cre dibly test ified that she did n ot

remem ber i f she foll owed her u sual pract ice b efore prep aring the a ffida vit a nd th at Ca stro had f ailed to s how t hat t his omiss ion w as re ckles s or made with the i ntent to d eceiv e. We fi nd no clea r err or in the distr ict c ourt’ s fin ding that the a ffian t lac ked t he me ntal state requ ired for s uppre ssion of th e evi dence gath ered by vi rtue of th e sea rch w arran t.

For t he fo regoi ng re asons , and find ing n o mer it in Castr o’s o ther argum ents, we h ereby AFFIR M the j udgme nt of the d istri ct co urt.

FOR T HE CO URT: CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK

3