IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50444

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ISMAEL ACOSTA JUAREZ, also known as Ismael Juarez,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CR-288-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Ismael Acosta Juarez appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine, aiding and abetting possession with intent to

distribute cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He argues

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

obtained pursuant to a search warrant because the supporting affidavit was

insufficient to support application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary

rule. Juarez contends that the affidavit contained only unverified and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 11, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-50444 Document: 00511346861 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2011
No. 10-50444

uncorroborated statements and was so conclusional that it was unreasonable for

an officer to believe that it established probable cause for the search.

The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that if law

enforcement officials act in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a

search warrant, then evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant is admissible

even if the affidavit on which the warrant was grounded was insufficient to

establish probable cause. United States v. Shugart, 117 F.3d 838, 843 (5th Cir.

1997). Officers may not rely on a bare bones affidavit. United States v. Leon,

468 U.S. 897, 922-23 (1984) (noting that a bare bones affidavit contains wholly

conclusional statements and is so wanting for indicia of probable cause that

official belief that probable cause exists is entirely unreasonable). We review

factual findings on a motion to suppress for clear error and determinations

regarding the reasonableness of an officer’s reliance on a warrant and the

sufficiency of the warrant de novo. United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 406-

07 (5th Cir. 1999).

Most of the information in the affidavit was obtained from an identified

informant, who agreed to provide a voluntary statement after he was arrested

for negotiating to sell cocaine to a cooperating source. The informant stated that

he had obtained the cocaine for the transaction from Juarez and that he had

been selling cocaine received from Juarez for the past three or four months. The

informant was able to show law enforcement officers where he had received the

cocaine from Juarez, and he also identified a call in his cell phone history as

being to Juarez. The cooperating source was able to verify the details of the drug

transaction with the informant. Because the affidavit provided detailed

information, including evidence of the informant’s reliability, as well as

corroboration of certain facts, the district court did not err in concluding that the

good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. See United States v.

Cordero, 465 F.3d 626, 628-30 (5th Cir. 2006); Shugart, 117 F.3d at 844.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50444 Document: 00511346861 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2011