UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50411
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO CERVANTES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-99-CR-224-1-EP)
March 2, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Antonio Cervantes challenges the denial of his motion to
suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. He pleaded
guilty to possession of marijuana and cocaine with intent to
distribute, but preserved his right to appeal the denial of his
suppression motion.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence
obtained pursuant to a search warrant, we determine: (1) whether
the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies; and (2)
if not, whether probable cause supported the warrant. United
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied,
120 S. Ct. 1669 (2000).
Cervantes contends the good-faith exception does not apply
because the affidavit on which the search warrant was based was
merely a “bare bones” affidavit, and the warrant did not authorize
a search of vehicles parked on the premises. The affidavit was
based on the personal observation by a confidential informant, who
had previously provided reliable, credible information, of
Cervantes in possession of, and selling, marijuana at the subject
premises within the previous 24 hours. Thus, the officers relied
in good faith on the warrant. See United States v. Satterwhite,
980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992). And, a warrant issued for “the
premises” includes vehicles parked on the premises. See, e.g.,
United States v. Singer, 970 F.2d 1414, 1417-18 (5th Cir. 1992).
The district court did not err in denying the suppression motion.
Cervantes also asserts that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for disclosure of the informant’s
identity. Because Cervantes did not preserve the right to appeal
this issue in his plea agreement, appellate review is foreclosed.
See United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915-16 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED
2