Opinion ID: 203966
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agent Figueroa's affidavit

Text: Padilla argues that the sentencing court committed clear error by crediting Agent Figueroa's affidavit. Again, we disagree. To be sure, Padilla has long insisted that Agent Figueroa falsified his affidavit. On the basis of this allegation and the required preliminary showing, Padilla obtained a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to determine the validity of the February 3, 2006 search warrant, which was based on the affidavit. In her Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge who presided over the Franks hearing identified several reasons to question the veracity of Agent Figueroa's affidavit. Yet the magistrate judge also credited Agent Figueroa's testimony during the hearing, noting that he was forthright in demeanor and that some evidence . . . corroborated Figueroa's version of events. She ultimately upheld the validity of the search warrant, and submitted Proposed Findings of Fact based on Agent's Figueroa's testimony. In light of this outcome and the substance of the magistrate judge's report, we -20- cannot conclude that the district court committed clear error in giving the affidavit the weight that it did. See Matos, 328 F.3d at 40-41 ([W]hen more than one sensible interpretation . . . can supportably be drawn, a sentencing court's decision to credit one alternative and reject another cannot be deemed clearly erroneous.). Taking the measure of a sworn statement in view of its attempted impeachment is typical fact-finding, and the record simply does not compel a strong, unyielding belief that a mistake has been made. See Bermúdez, 407 F.3d at 542 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).