UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4413

PAUL J. PICKERING,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.

James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-96-26)

Submitted: March 3, 1998

Decided: March 23, 1998

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gracelia R. Helring, GRACELIA R. HELRING, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney,

Nancy S. Healey, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,

Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Paul J. Pickering was convicted pursuant to his guilty

plea of one count of possessing child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252

(1994)) and a criminal forfeiture count (18 U.S.C.§ 2253 (1994)).

Pickering alleges on appeal that the district court erred by denying his

motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his home

because the search warrant was not supported by probable cause.

Finding no error, we affirm.

Customs agents arrested an individual suspected of dealing in child

pornography. They discovered a list of names and addresses on his

person. Pickering's name and post office box address were on this list.1

Postal inspectors sent Pickering a solicitation letter offering to sell

videotape "catalogs" depicting child pornography. The letter contained a card upon which Pickering could either place an order or

request that his name be removed from the mailing list. Pickering

ordered all three video catalogs, enclosed a check, and stated that he

wanted the tapes delivered to his post office box address.

A local postal inspector ("Dexter") prepared two of the video catalogs for a controlled delivery to Pickering's post office box address.

He also applied for and obtained a search warrant for Pickering's residence. In his affidavit in support of the search warrant, Dexter outlined his qualifications and stated that, in his experience, purchasers

of child pornography tended to keep evidence of their activities in

their homes. The warrant allowed inspectors to search Pickering's

home between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The package

containing the video catalogs was placed in Pickering's post office

box every morning and removed every evening and was kept under

constant surveillance.

_________________________________________________________________

1 Postal inspectors discovered that Pickering received almost all of his

mail at his post office box address rather than at his home address. For

purposes of this appeal, we will assume that all mail was delivered to

Pickering's post office box address.

 2
When Pickering did not pick up the box after approximately one

week, inspectors sent him another letter stating that the order had

been returned by the post office with no explanation and requesting

Pickering to confirm his order since he had already paid for the tapes.

Pickering replied that he wanted the tapes and again specified his post

office box address as the delivery location. Meanwhile, Dexter discovered that Pickering frequently picked up his mail after midnight.

Dexter applied for another search warrant, this time requesting that

the warrant be valid anytime day or night.

Pickering eventually picked up the package containing the video

catalogs one morning shortly after 5:00 a.m. Instead of taking the

package directly home, however, he took it with him to work. Dexter

called Pickering at work and ordered him to return home with the

package so inspectors could execute the search warrant. Pickering

complied, Dexter executed the search warrant, and Pickering was

arrested. Additional evidence of child pornography was discovered in

the search.

At trial, Pickering filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized in

the search of his home. He alleged that there was no probable cause

to support the warrant because the video catalogs were delivered to

his post office box, rather than his home, and because there was no

evidence that the tapes were on a sure and certain course to his home.

The district court disagreed and denied the motion.

We accord "great deference" to the magistrate judge's assessment

of the facts when making a probable cause determination. Illinois v.

Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983) (quoting Spinelli v. United States,

393 U.S. 410 (1969)); United States v. Blackwood , 913 F.2d 139, 142

(4th Cir. 1990). Our inquiry is limited to whether there was a substantial basis for the magistrate judge's conclusion that probable cause

existed. See Blackwood, 913 F.2d at 142. There are no bright-line

rules for making this determination; rather the magistrate judge must

use common sense in deciding whether there is a fair probability that

the evidence sought will be found in the place to be searched. See id.

In the present case, we find that the district court conducted a proper

 3
inquiry and correctly found that there was a substantial basis for the

magistrate judge's probable cause determination. 2

This court has held that anticipatory warrants are valid where the

contraband is on a sure course to its destination. See United States v.

Goodwin, 854 F.2d 33, 36 (4th Cir. 1988) (stating that mail is on a

sure course to its destination when it is en route through the U.S. Mail

to defendant's home); see also United States v. Cedelle, 89 F.3d 181,

186 (applying the Goodwin sure course analysis when the mail was

being delivered to a mailbox facility separate from defendant's

home). Pickering contends that there was no evidence to support the

conclusion that he would take the tapes home. We disagree. Dexter

stated in his affidavit that in his extensive experience investigating

this type of crime, purchasers of child pornography generally kept

evidence of their activities in their homes. Moreover, we agree with

the district court's common sense conclusion that purchasers of child

pornography are most likely to view their acquisitions in the privacy

of their homes. Based on Pickering's correspondence with postal

inspectors and Dexter's affidavit, we find that there was a substantial

basis for the magistrate judge's conclusion that the video catalogs

were on a sure course to Pickering's home and that it was probable

that additional evidence of Pickering's illegal activities would be

found there.3

_________________________________________________________________

2 We decline to address Pickering's contention that the district court

erred by classifying the search warrant as "normal," as opposed to "anticipatory." Even applying the more stringent standards for anticipatory

warrants, we find that probable cause existed to issue the warrant.

3 We find Pickering's reliance on United States v. Barrington, 806 F.2d

529 (5th Cir. 1986), United States v. Ricciardelli, 998 F.2d 8 (1st Cir.

1993), and United States v. Hendricks, 743 F.2d 653 (9th Cir. 1984),

misplaced. Barrington involved a "bare bones" affidavit supported only

by the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of an unidentified confidential

informant. See 806 F.2d at 532. The present affidavit was supported by

Pickering's own correspondence and activities and Dexter's extensive

experience. The warrant in Ricciardelli was invalidated because of certain ambiguities not present here. See 998 F.2d at 12 (noting that the warrant was not narrowly drawn to ensure an appropriate nexus between the

item to be seized and its destination). Finally, Hendricks involved a controlled delivery of drugs, which could be used or distributed from anywhere, not just the home. See 743 F.2d at 654.

 4
We therefore affirm Pickering's convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 5