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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-51268

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEVALGIA GILDON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CR-141-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Levalgia Gildon pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to

distribute five grams or more of cocaine base and one count of possession of a

firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. On appeal, he argues that the

district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a

search of his residence.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 13, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-51268

2

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court reviews factual

findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Phillips,

382 F.3d 489, 494 (5th Cir. 2004). The district court found that the good-faith

exception applied and denied Gildon’s motion to suppress. The good-faith

exception provides that “evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable

good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the

affidavit on which the warrant was based was insufficient to establish probable

cause.” United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992).

Gildon argues that the good-faith exception does not apply because the

warrant was based on an affidavit that was “so lacking in indicia of probable

cause as to render belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” United States

v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407-08 (5th Cir. 1999). Specifically, he contends that

the affidavit lacks sufficient indicia of probable cause because the allegations in

the affidavit are stale and the allegations do not establish a nexus between the

alleged criminal activity and his residence.

The allegations in the affidavit are not stale because they show an ongoing

pattern of criminal activity between Gildon and a confidential informant. See

United States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120, 1130 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding

that information reaching back over long periods may be used to support an

affidavit “if the information of the affidavit clearly shows a long-standing,

ongoing pattern of criminal activity”). In addition, the allegations in the

affidavit establish a nexus between the alleged criminal activity and Gildon’s

residence. The affidavit provides that Gildon sold cocaine base on three separate

occasions to a confidential informant; that the vehicles used in the three drug

transactions were parked in front of his residence; and that the affiant believed

that persons involved in drug trafficking kept controlled substances, records of

drug transactions, large amounts of currency, financial instruments, and other

items of value at their residences. The affidavit therefore establishes a nexus

between the residence and illegal activity “through normal inferences as to
No. 08-51268

3

where the articles sought would be located.” United States v. Nguyen, 172 F.

App’x 558, 561 (5th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Pace, 955 F.2d 270, 277

(5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that the

officers could rely in good faith on the warrant because the warrant did not lack

sufficient indicia of probable cause.

AFFIRMED.