Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elroy Richard GIDDENS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-07
Citations: 138 F. App'x 935
Docket Number: No. 04-50439; D.C. No. CR-04-00052-SVW
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Elroy Richard GIDDENS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before REINHARDT, KOZINSKI and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 138
Pages: 935–936

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Elroy Richard GIDDENS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-50439.
D.C. No. CR-04-00052-SVW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 6, 2005.
Decided July 7, 2005.
Ronald L. Cheng, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA Susan Ficcandenti, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellee.
K Elizabeth Dahlstrom, Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, Jeffrey A. Aaron, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Riverside, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REINHARDT, KOZINSKI and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The district court did not err in failing to exclude the firearms seized from Giddens's home. Even if there was insufficient probable cause to support the search, the government agents conducting the search reasonably relied on a facially valid warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. Under these circumstances, even if the search violated the Fourth Amendment due to insufficient probable cause, excluding the evidence would not have a deterrent effect and is not required by the Fourth Amendment. See United, States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 916, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). Thus, the district court did not err in denying Giddens's motion to exclude the firearms evidence.
2. Because this is the unusual case in which it is clear from the record that the district court would have sentenced the defendant to a lesser sentence had the court known the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, we vacate Giddens's sentence and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).
3. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.