Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Francisco MACIAS-OVALLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-12
Citations: 432 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 10-30228
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Francisco MACIAS-OVALLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BEA and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 432
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Francisco MACIAS-OVALLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30228.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 4, 2011.
Filed May 12, 2011.
Scott Kerin, Amy Potter, Jane Hawkins Shoemaker, Kelly A. Zusman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Kendra M. Matthews, Ransom & Blackmon, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BEA and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Each of the government's affidavits contained the full and complete statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c). Each affidavit properly incorporated previous affidavits, see United States v. Garcia-Villalba, 585 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir.2009), and provided case-specific explanations for the use, limitations and rejection of various traditional surveillance tactics in the investigation of specific individuals, see id. at 1229-30. The district court didn't abuse its discretion in finding that the wiretaps were necessary. See United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 898 (9th Cir.2008). Nor has Macias-Ovalle made the substantial showing necessary to justify an evidentiary hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). See id. at 155-56, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.