FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30059
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00082-RSL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CEDRIC BARQUET, a.k.a. Ced,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Cedric Barquet appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 144-month
sentence for (1) conspiracy to distribute cocaine and “crack” cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and (2) possession with intent to
distribute cocaine and “crack” cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
841(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Barquet contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion to
suppress because the government failed to satisfy its statutory burdens under
18 U.S.C. § 2518. The district court did not err because the record reflects that the
government’s wiretap applications sufficiently “attest[ ] that adequate investigative
tactics were exhausted before the wiretap order was sought or that such methods
reasonably appeared unlikely to succeed or too dangerous.” United States v.
Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 898 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). The government
also acted reasonably in its “good faith efforts to use traditional investigative
tactics or its decision to forego such tactics based on the unlikelihood of their
success or the probable risk of danger involved with their use.” United States v.
Gonzalez, Inc., 412 F.3d 1102, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, any error or
omissions in the government’s applications were not material to the authorizing
court’s approval of the wiretaps. See United States v. Carneiro, 861 F.2d 1171,
1176-77 (9th Cir. 1988).
Barquet also contends that the district court erred in denying him the
opportunity to develop a record in support of his motion to suppress by denying
him a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). The district
2 10-30059
court did not err when it denied Barquet’s request for a Franks hearing because
Barquet failed to make “a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit[s]
contained intentionally or recklessly false statements, and that the affidavit purged
of its falsities would not be sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.”
United States v. Meling, 47 F.3d 1546, 1553 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation
marks, brackets and ellipses omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3 10-30059