United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2410

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Marcus Allen

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: July 7, 2016

 Filed: July 12, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Marcus Allen guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm,

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e); possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, crack

cocaine, and methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and possessing a

firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The
District Court sentenced Allen to a total of 360 months in prison and 6 years of 1

supervised release. In this appeal, Allen challenges the denial of his motion to

suppress evidence seized from his residence, the denial of a hearing under Franks v.

Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and the exclusion of the search-warrant application

from evidence at trial.

We find no error in the District Court’s denial of Allen’s motion to suppress. 

The law-enforcement official’s warrant affidavit consisted of detailed and

corroborated information from a confidential source. The sworn affidavit provided

a substantial basis for finding probable cause—“a fair probability that contraband or

evidence of a crime” would be found at the residential address. Illinois v. Gates, 462

U.S. 213, 238 (1983). And contrary to Allen’s arguments, the Magistrate Judge’s

failure to sign the jurat on the warrant application did not render the warrant

defective—much less so defective that no police officer could reasonably have

presumed the warrant was valid—given that the attesting law-enforcement officer

was sworn and signed both the application and the affidavit in the presence of the

Magistrate Judge, who also signed the attached supporting affidavit. See United

States v. Smith, 63 F.3d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1063 (1996). 

In addition, a date error in the warrant affidavit was an inconsequential typographical

error, and the file-stamp date of the warrant (a day after its actual execution) did not

compromise the probable-cause finding. See United States v. Solomon, 432 F.3d

824, 829 (8th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Waker, 534 F.3d 168, 171 (2nd

Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (explaining that the dating errors in an officer’s affidavit and

warrant “were harmless because each document in which they occurred contained

accurate information from which one could easily establish the intended dates”). 

The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas.

-2-
Further, Allen failed to make a substantial showing sufficient to justify a

Franks hearing, given the absence of any evidence of deliberate falsehoods or a

reckless disregard for the truth that would invalidate the search warrant. See United

States v. Lucca, 377 F.3d 927, 931 (8th Cir. 2004). Finally, we find no abuse of

discretion in the District Court’s challenged evidentiary ruling. See United States v.

Espinoza, 684 F.3d 766, 778 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct.

(2012). 

We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny Allen’s pending

motions.

______________________________

-3-