UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOEL DELOERA-ESCALERA, a/k/a 

Roberto, a/k/a Joel Deloera, a/k/a Luis 

Perez-Hernandez, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 14-5143 

(D.C. No. 4:13-CR-00229-CVE-2) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Joel Deloera-Escalera appeals multiple convictions arising from law 

enforcement’s search of his duplex. Deloera-Escalera challenges the district court’s 

denial of his motion to consolidate two cases filed against him, one charging illegal 

reentry and the other asserting multiple drug-related charges. He also challenges the 

denial of his motion to suppress the evidence discovered in a search of his home that 

led to the charges in the second case. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 

10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

January 15, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-5143 Document: 01019554869 Date Filed: 01/15/2016 Page: 1 
2 

BACKGROUND

 Based on information he received from confidential informants, Oklahoma 

Bureau of Narcotics Agent John Morrison applied for a warrant to search an alleged 

stash house in Tulsa. In the heading of his supporting affidavit, Morrison listed 1515 

South 67th East Avenue in bold, underlined type. He then referred to that address in 

six locations in the body of his affidavit. But he also made a single reference to 1515 

North 67th East Avenue. 

Similarly, the resulting search warrant listed the address to be searched as 

1515 North 67th East Avenue. But it otherwise accurately described 1515 South 67th 

East Avenue: 

The residence is a duplex located south of 15th Street on 67th East 

Avenue. It is on the east side of 67th East Avenue and faces west 

towards the street. The residence is a single story, multi-family duplex. 

The duplex is connected to another duplex just to the south of it. The 

structure is a combination of wood and brick. The wood is green in 

color and the brick is tan. The residence has shingles that are black in 

color. 

R. Vol. II at 22. 

Before the search, Morrison and Tulsa Police Department Officer W.R. 

Mackenzie observed the residence at 1515 South 67th East Avenue. And on 

the day they executed the search, Morrison told TPD officers that the subject 

house was on South 67th East Avenue. He also gave them a copy of the 

affidavit, a copy of the search warrant, and photographs of 1515 South 67th 

East Avenue. Mackenzie and other TPD officers then executed the search 

Appellate Case: 14-5143 Document: 01019554869 Date Filed: 01/15/2016 Page: 2 
3 

warrant at 1515 South 67th East Avenue. There, they found and arrested Joel 

Deloera-Escalera after discovering methamphetamine and firearms. 

A grand jury subsequently indicted Deloera-Escalera in Case No. 13-CR-212-

JED for illegally reentering the United States. That case was assigned to U.S. District 

Judge John Dowdell. Less than a month later, in Case No. 13-CR-229-CVE, a second 

indictment charged Deloera-Escalera with participating in a drug conspiracy, 

maintaining a drug-involved premise, and possession of a firearm by an alien 

illegally or unlawfully in the United States. Case No. 13-CR-229-CVE was assigned 

to U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan. 

In response, Deloera-Escalera moved to consolidate all four of the charges into 

Case No. 13-CR-212-JED, arguing, “[T]he two cases give the appearance of forum 

shopping on the part of the government, and could also give the appearance of 

impropriety in the judicial process to the general public.” R. Vol. I at 27. Judge 

Eagan denied the motion, in part because she concluded the “cases involve[d] 

separate and unrelated crimes.” R. Vol. I at 30. But later, on the government’s 

motion, Judge Dowdell dismissed the indictment for illegal reentry in Case No. 13-

CR-212-JED. The government filed a superseding indictment that added DeloeraEscalera’s illegal reentry charge to Case No. 13-CR-229-CVE. 

Meanwhile, Deloera-Escalera filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the 

inconsistent addresses in the warrant and affidavit rendered the warrant facially 

invalid. Judge Eagan denied the motion, concluding the warrant adequately described 

1515 South 67th East Avenue with particularity despite the incorrect address. 

Appellate Case: 14-5143 Document: 01019554869 Date Filed: 01/15/2016 Page: 3 
4 

A jury found Deloera-Escalera guilty of all four charges, and the district court 

sentenced him to 135 months. Deloera-Escalera appeals. 

DISCUSSION

Deloera-Escalera first challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to 

consolidate. The district court denied Deloera-Escalera’s motion to consolidate 

because the cases involved “separate and unrelated crimes.” R. Vol. I at 30. On 

appeal, Deloera-Escalera doesn’t challenge that conclusion. Instead, he merely cites 

the importance of preventing forum shopping and avoiding the appearance of 

impropriety, and insists the district court erred in refusing to consolidate the cases. 

A district court may consolidate cases if all the offenses charged “could have 

been joined in a single indictment.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 13. A single indictment, in turn, 

may charge multiple offenses only if those offenses “are of the same or similar 

character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or 

constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). 

Whether offenses may be joined under Rule 8(a) is a question of law that we 

review de novo. United States v. Bagby, 696 F.3d 1074, 1086 (10th Cir. 2012). But 

we review a court’s refusal to consolidate cases under Rule 13 for abuse of 

discretion. See United States v. Knowles, 572 F.2d 267, 270 (10th Cir. 1978) (“The 

decision of the trial court to consolidate the cases for trial under Rule 13 . . . will not 

be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion.”). 

Deloera-Escalera makes no effort to establish the charged crimes could have 

been joined under Rule 8(a)—a preliminary requirement for consolidation under Rule 

Appellate Case: 14-5143 Document: 01019554869 Date Filed: 01/15/2016 Page: 4 
5 

13. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 13 (explaining district court may order that separate cases be 

tried together if all offenses could have been joined in single indictment); United 

States v. Van Scoy, 482 F.2d 347, 349 (10th Cir. 1973) (explaining that because 

offenses were “sufficiently connected together for joinder under Rule 8(a),” they 

were also “subject to consolidation” under Rule 13). Therefore, we find no abuse of 

discretion in the district court’s refusal to consolidate the cases under Rule 13, and 

we affirm the district court’s denial of Deloera-Escalera’s motion to consolidate. 

Deloera-Escalera next challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing 

the district court erred in rejecting his argument that the inconsistent addresses in the 

warrant and affidavit rendered the warrant facially invalid. Specifically, he contends 

that as a result of the incorrect addresses, the warrant didn’t describe the place to be 

searched with particularity and the resulting search was unconstitutional. 

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the district court’s 

factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous and view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the government. See United States v. Padilla-Esparza, 798 F.3d 

993, 998 (10th Cir. 2015). We review the district court’s determination of 

reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment de novo. Id. 

We apply a two-prong test to determine whether a warrant adequately 

describes the location to be searched, asking (1) “whether the description is sufficient 

to enable the executing officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable 

effort” and (2) “whether there is any reasonable probability that another premise 

might be mistakenly searched.” United States v. Garcia, 707 F.3d 1190, 1197 (10th 

Appellate Case: 14-5143 Document: 01019554869 Date Filed: 01/15/2016 Page: 5 
6 

Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Lora-Solano, 330 F.3d 1288, 1293 (10th Cir. 

2003)). Practical accuracy, not technical precision, determines whether a search 

warrant adequately describes the premises to be searched. Id. Thus, “[a] technically 

wrong address does not invalidate a warrant if it otherwise describes the premises 

with sufficient particularity so that the police can ascertain and identify the place to 

be searched.” Lora-Solano, 330 F.3d at 1293. If there is a discrepancy, the executing 

officer may seek clarification in an attached affidavit. See United States v. 

Occhipinti, 998 F.2d 791, 799 (10th Cir. 1993). 

Here, the warrant’s description clearly enabled the executing officers to locate 

and identify the premises with reasonable effort. See Garcia, 707 F.3d at 1197. The 

warrant described the residence in detail, including, critically, its location south of 

15th Street. It also described the residence—its orientation, its composition, and its 

colors—with sufficient particularity to allow police to identify the place to be 

searched. And the attached affidavit clarified any discrepancy by identifying the 

address as 1515 South 67th East Avenue in bold, underlined type. See Occhipinti, 

998 F.2d at 799 (concluding correct address in attached application clarified incorrect 

address in warrant). Finally, Mackenzie’s prior observation of and familiarity with 

1515 South 67th East Avenue bolstered the adequacy of the warrant’s description. 

See id. (concluding court can consider executing officer’s knowledge to determine if 

search warrant’s description is adequate); United States v. Sturmoski, 971 F.2d 452, 

458 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting that presence of officer familiar with premises 

“provided additional reliability that the correct premises would be searched”). 

Appellate Case: 14-5143 Document: 01019554869 Date Filed: 01/15/2016 Page: 6 
7 

Nor do we find any reasonable probability here that officers might have 

searched the wrong house. See Garcia, 707 F.3d at 1197. The only other residence 

officers might conceivably have searched was 1515 North 67th East Avenue. But the 

warrant described a duplex located south of 15th Street, and the affidavit included 

information from informants about a stash house near 15th Street and Sheridan. The 

record reveals that the 1515 South 67th East Avenue residence is near the 

intersection of 15th Street and Sheridan, just south of 15th Street. On the other hand, 

1515 North 67th East Avenue is located nearly three miles north of 15th Street. Thus, 

the description of the residence in the warrant, plus photos and the executing 

officer’s prior knowledge of the premises “virtually eliminated the possibility of 

searching the wrong residence.” Id. In other words, the warrant was practically 

accurate despite the wrong address. See id. 

Because the search warrant adequately described the place to be searched with 

particularity, we reject Deloera-Escalera’s facial invalidity argument and affirm the 

district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. 

Affirmed.

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-5143 Document: 01019554869 Date Filed: 01/15/2016 Page: 7