L eonar d has bee n indicted in a sepa rate case for her alleg ed involvement in the marijuana 1 traff icking conspirac y .

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0062n.06 No. 09-5974 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA , Plaintif f-Appellee , v. JI M M Y F OX , Defendant-

Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

THE EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: KEN NE DY , C OLE, and G RI F F IN , C ir c uitJudg e s. COLE, Circuit Jud ge. Def endant- Appella

nt Ji mm y F o x a p p e a ls th e d is tric t c o u

r t’ s d e cision
no t to su pp res s e vid e nc e ob ta ine d d ur inga se arc h o f t

he ho me he sh are d w ithhis g ir lf ri e nd Ke lly L e on ard

. F ox c on te nd s th a t th e ma g istrate jud g e la c ke d p ro ba ble c a us e to i ssu e the se arc h w a rr a nt. We AF F IRM
. I. BACKG ROUND Following a seve ra l m o nth inve stigation into a larg e-sc ale mar ijuana tra ffickingorg anization operating in Ea st Tennessee , DrugEnforc ement A d mi n is tr a ti o n Sp e c ia l A g e nt M ic h a e l E

. T e mple ton
so ug ht a wa

rr ant to se arc h L e on ard ’s ho me and surr ound ing are a . In s up po rt of the se arc h w a rr a nt, 1 Te mpl e ton

fi le d a thi rt y -s e ve n- pa g e ma ste r a ff

id avi t (not

inc lud ingph oto g ra

ph s) , w hic h a lsoNo. 09-5974

USA v. J immy Fox

- 2 - supported a r equest to sea rch e leven a dditional locations. At the time of the application, F ox was an ele cted c ounty

Constable and R eser

ve Deputy
. The a ffidavit wa s larg ely based on infor

mation pr ov ide d b y

a pr ov e n c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ant t hat L e on ard

wa s o ne of

the or g anizatio n’ s d istri bu tor s, including a

n observe d meeting betwee n the informant, the dr ug traff icking ring leade r, L eonar d, and Fox, during w hich the ringleade r made plans to trade dr ug s for F ox ’s motorcy cle. A mag istrate judg e g rante d Templeton the sea rch w arr ant on J uly

3, 2008, and it was executed four

day s later. Author ities seized, from both the home and Fox’s vehicle, two dig ital scale s, two firea

rms with ammunition, a photogra ph of F ox smoking mar ijuana, and use r quantities of mari jua na and ha sh ish . L e on ard

tol d a g e nts that both sh e and F ox we re re g ula r m ari jua na us e rs ; Fox confirmed that he was a marijuana

user a nd had bee n so for more than a y ear . A g ra nd jur y ind ic te d F ox wi th b e ing an un la wf ul us e r or a dd ic t of a c on tr oll e d su bs tanc e in po sse ssi on

of a fi re arm in vio la tio n of 18 U. S.C. §§ 92 2( g )( 3) and 92 4( a )( 2) . H e mov e d to su pp re ss the se ize d e vid e nc e , c la imi ngtha t th e wa rr ant w a s n ot s up po rt e d b y pr ob a ble c a us e . T he ma g istrate judge issued a Report a

nd Recommendation (“R& R”), re commending that Fox’s motion be denied. The district cour

t affir med and a dopted the R& R , fi n d i n g that the motion to suppress should be denied on two a lternate g rounds: first, the sea rch w as supported by

probable cause , and sec ond, even if probable cause had not bee n established, the Leon g ood faith exception applied. See U nited States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922 ( 1984) (“ We conclude that the marg inal or nonexistent benefits produce d by suppressing evidenc e obtained in objectively rea sonable re liance on a

subsequently

invalidated
sear ch wa

rra nt cannot justify

the substantial costs of exclusion.”). Fox enter ed a guilty plea,No. 09-5974

USA v. J immy Fox

- 3 - rese rving h is r ig h t t o a

p p e a l t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s d e n ia l o f h is mo ti o n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c ed Fox to five months incarce ration followed by three y ear s of supervise d rele ase. This appea l followed. II. AN AL YSI S Fox a ppeals the denial of his suppre ssion moti on, claiming that the war rant a uthorizi ng the
sear ch of the house he sha red w ith L eonar d was not supported by probable cause . We need not re ach thi s is su e , h ow e ve r, be c a

us e it is on e of tw o a lte rn a tiv e g ro un ds on wh ic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt

ba se d it s decision. Fox f

ailed to c halleng e the district court’s se cond g round, the Leon g ood faith exception. Tw o is olate d s e nte nc e s in an op eni ng brief

that make c ur so ry

re fe re nc e to a

n o ff ic e r’ s r e a so na

ble actions ar e not enoug h to constitute an argument. See M cPhe rson v . Kelsey , 125 F.3d 989, 995- 96 (6 t h Cir. 1997) (“[I ]ss ues adve rted to in a pe rfunc tory manner , unacc ompanied by some eff ort at de ve lop e d a

rgume ntatio n, are de e me d wa ive d. I t is no t su ff ic ie nt fo r a pa

rt y to m e nti on

a po ssi ble argument in the most skeletal way , leaving the court to
. . . put flesh on its bones.”) (quotation marks omitted) (alter ation in orig inal). Sin c e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s r u li n g o n th e g o o d f

a it h e xc e p ti o n s u f

f ic e d to ju s ti f

y it s d e n ial of Fox’s motion t o suppress, Fox’s f ailure to a ppeal that aspec t of

the cour t’s decision mea

ns the denial of the motion st ill st ands. See Elite Sportwear Prods., Inc. v . N.Y . Life Ins. Co. , 270 F. App’ x 153, 154 (3d Cir. Marc h 18, 2008) (“ [W ]e . . . will a ffirm beca use these unappea led aspec ts of the District Court’s decision re pr e s e nt an ade quate a nd independe nt gr ound for [the district court’s judg ment].”).No. 09-5974

USA v. J immy Fox

- 4 - Fox additionally

tries to argue that the searc h war rant did not authorize the s ear ch of his car beca use it failed to par

ticularly descr ibe the vehic le. This ar gu ment, howeve r, is also waive d beca use F ox failed to objec t to the R&R’s ana ly sis that the searc h of his car was prope r. See United States v. Miller , 2 2 7 F. Ap p ’x 4 4 6 , 4 5 2 (6 t h C i r. M ar ch 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Tho ma s v . A rn , 4 74 U. S. 140, 142 (1985))

. III . C ON CL USI ON For these re asons, we AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of F ox’s mot ion

to s up pr e ss.