IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50472
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REYNALDO LEOS GALINDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
***************************
___________________
No. 96-50559
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANK MATHIS; TROY MATHIS,
Defendants-Appellants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC Nos. SA-95-CR-148-4 & SA-95-CR-148-6
- - - - - - - - - -
December 19, 1997
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 96-50472 & 96-50559
-2-
PER CURIAM:*
Reynaldo Leos Galindo, Frank Mathis, and Troy Mathis were
charged in a superseding indictment, along with nine other
individuals, for various drug offenses. After their motions to
suppress wiretap evidence were denied, Galindo entered a
conditional guilty plea to count 2 of a superseding indictment,
which charged him with possession of cocaine with intent to
distribute and aiding and abetting; Frank Mathis entered a
conditional guilty plea to a superseding information, which
charged him with possession of cocaine base with intent to
distribute; and Troy Mathis entered a conditional guilty plea to
a superseding information, which charged him with use of a
communication device to facilitate a drug trafficking felony.
The orders authorizing the wiretaps in this case were
predicated upon representations in affidavits of Drug Enforcement
Administration Special Agent William Furay. Appellants argue
that the affidavits contain false statements of fact and were
based upon stale information. Considering the totality of the
circumstances and the lack of corroborating information in the
affidavits, they argue, the affidavits failed to establish that
there was probable cause for the wiretaps. Appellants contend
that the affidavits failed to establish the necessity of the
proposed wiretaps. Appellants contend that the applications and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Nos. 96-50472 & 96-50559
-3-
supporting documents were technically deficient. Appellants
contend that interception of communications continued after the
expiration of the authorized period. Appellants contend that
this requirement was violated in two instances. Appellants
contend that the Government continued to intercept communications
long after the achievement of its objectives. Finally,
appellants contend that the cumulative effect of the errors and
violations in obtaining and executing the wiretap orders required
suppression of the wiretap evidence.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record.
Essentially for reasons stated by the district court, see United
States v. Mathis et al., No. SA-95-CR-148 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22,
1996), we hold that the district court did not err in refusing to
suppress the wiretap evidence. The judgments are
AFFIRMED.