IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-11099 c/w
No. 97-11122 c/w
No. 97-11125
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEON JOSEPH STEPHENS, also known as Joe Blow,
Defendant-Appellant;
ANDRA DEMON HUBBARD, also known as Pooh,
Defendant-Appellant;
LAMARCUS TYRONE WILLIAMS, also known as T-Dog,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:97-CR-50-1-A
USDC No. 4:97-CR-50-4
USDC No. 4:97-CR-50-A-3
- - - - - - - - - -
July 2, 1998
Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leon Joseph Stephens, Andra Demon Hubbard, and Lamarcus Tyrone
Williams appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 97-11099
No. 97-11122
No. 97-11125
-2-
suppress evidence.
Appellants contend that the warrant was based on an affidavit
that contained material omissions critical to a finding of probable
cause. The appellants have not shown that any omission in the
affidavit was intentional or reckless or that intent should be
inferred because the omitted information was critical to a finding
of probable cause. See United States v. Cronan, 937 F.2d 163, 165
(5th Cir. 1991).
Stephens also contends that warrant was issued based on a
“bare bones” affidavit. The affidavit supporting the search
warrant was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to
render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. See
United States v. McKnight, 953 F.2d 898, 905 (5th Cir.
1992)(holding that an affidavit based on the personal observations
of drug manufacturing by an informant who had furnished reliable
information in the past was not “bare bones”). Stephens has
offered no evidence to support his claim that the magistrate
abandoned his judicial role in issuing the warrant.
Appellants have not shown that the good-faith exception to the
exclusionary rule does not apply. Thus, the evidence obtained by
Gladney in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon the
search warrant is admissible. See United States v. Satterwhite,
980 F.2d 317, 320-21 (5th Cir.1992). The district court did not
err in denying the appellants’ motions to suppress.
No. 97-11099
No. 97-11122
No. 97-11125
-3-
AFFIRMED.