United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10198

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Christopher James Regan, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:19-CR-21-2

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Christopher James Regan entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving 

the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress, to 

one count of conspiracy to produce child pornography and two counts of 

production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2551(a) and (e). 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 7, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10198 Document: 00515697481 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
No. 20-10198

2

He was sentenced to 1080 months of imprisonment. He argues on appeal 

that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence 

obtained from a search of his residence, and that the district court should 

have conducted an evidentiary hearing before denying his motion to 

suppress. He also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion 

to exclude the statements of his co-defendant, Tanya Regan, in light of Bruton 

v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126 (1968).

This court engages in a two-step inquiry when reviewing a district 

court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress which challenges the 

sufficiency of a warrant. United States v. Froman, 355 F.3d 882, 888 (5th Cir. 

2004). First, this court determines whether the good-faith exception to the 

exclusionary rule announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), 

applies. Froman, 355 F.3d at 888. If the good-faith exception does not apply, 

this court proceeds to the second step and determines whether there was 

probable cause justifying issuance of the warrant. Froman, 355 F.3d at 888.

Contrary to Regan’s assertions otherwise, the affidavit was notso bare 

bones as to render belief in the existence of probable cause entirely 

unreasonable. See United States v. Woerner, 709 F.3d 527, 533-34 (5th Cir. 

2013). To the contrary, the affidavit provided specific information, based on 

a cyber tip and evidence received by a subpoena, that the defendant’s 

residence was associated with IP addresses that were associated with child 

pornography during the relevant period. Further, there is no evidence that 

the issuing magistrate judge was misled by knowingly or recklessly false 

information in the affidavit or that the judge wholly abandoned his or her 

judicial role. See id.

Moreover, his argument that the warrant and affidavit failed to 

sufficiently particularize the place to be searched and the things to be seized 

likewise fails under the good faith exception. The description was equally if 

Case: 20-10198 Document: 00515697481 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
No. 20-10198

3

not more detailed than descriptions we have previously determined to be 

sufficient. See United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830, 836 (5th Cir. 2010); see 

also United States v. Layne, 43 F.3d 127, 132-33 (5th Cir. 1995). In short, the 

warrant and affidavit in this case were not so “facially deficient” such that 

officers could not reasonably presume that the warrant was valid. See 

Woerner, 709 F.3d at 533-34. As the district court did not err by applying the 

good-faith exception, we need go no further. See United States v. Contreras, 

905 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2018).

Regan’s challenge to the denial of an evidentiary hearing likewise fails. 

This court reviews the denial of a hearing on a motion to suppress for an 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 737 (5th Cir. 

1983). “Evidentiary hearings are not granted as a matter of course, but are 

held only when the defendant alleges sufficient facts which, if proven, would 

justify relief.” Id. Regan argues that he should have been granted the 

opportunity to prove, in a hearing, his claims that the magistrate abandoned 

her detached and neutral role and the affiant acted recklessly in preparing the 

warrant. However, Regan alleges no “definite, specific, detailed, [or] 

nonconjectural” facts to support his claims or to otherwise show that he is 

entitled to relief. Id. Regan’s bare assertions, with no supporting details or 

facts, are insufficient to show that the district court abused its discretion by 

not conducting a hearing.

Lastly, Regan argues that the district court erred in denying his motion 

to exclude the statements of his co-defendant in violation of Bruton. Regan 

fails to explain how the purportedly inculpatory statements were used against 

him in violation of his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. See 

United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361, 376 (5th Cir. 2013). Rather, as noted 

above, Regan pleaded guilty to his crime. He did not proceed to trial, let 

alone to a joint trial at which an inculpatory statement of a non-testifying coCase: 20-10198 Document: 00515697481 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
No. 20-10198

4

defendant was used against him. See id.; see also United States v. Restrepo, 994 

F.2d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 1993). He has demonstrated no Bruton error. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10198 Document: 00515697481 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/07/2021