IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20464
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARK LYNN POTTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-99-CR-585-1)
--------------------
April 2, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Mark Lynn Potts appeals from the district
court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized
pursuant to a search warrant. He argues that the district court
clearly erred in finding that Officer Walker did not intentionally
include in the affidavit the false statement concerning the
photographic identification of Potts. If redacted to expurgate
this statement, argues Potts, the affidavit would be insufficient
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
in content to support the court’s finding of probable cause for the
issuance of the search warrant.
Our review of the evidence presented at the evidentiary
hearing indicates that the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Officer Walker included the false statement in the
affidavit by mistake and neither intentionally nor in reckless
disregard for the truth. See United States v. McCarty, 36 F.3d
1349, 1356 (5th Cir. 1994). Further, the district court did not
err in determining that if the false statement were redacted, the
affidavit would still include sufficient information about the
confidential informant’s (C.I.) description and identification of
Potts, the C.I’s past relationship and illegal drug dealings with
Potts, the C.I.’s observation of large quantities of cocaine at
Potts’s residence approximately one week before the execution of
the warrant, and the C.I.’s history of reliability, to support the
judge’s finding of probable cause to issue a search warrant. See
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 (1978); United States v.
Dickey, 102 F.3d 157, 161 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did
not err in denying Pott’s motion to suppress the evidence seized
pursuant to the search warrant.
AFFIRMED.
2