IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60476
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM HEATH MARS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:01-CR-13-1-D
--------------------
March 7, 2003
Before JONES, STEWART, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Heath Mars is appealing his conditional guilty plea
conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to
distribute and for possession of a firearm during and in relation
to that drug-trafficking offense.
The motion of the United States to supplement the record on
appeal with the transcript of the suppression hearing is GRANTED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60476
-2-
Mars argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence because the
warrant was a general warrant which left the agents with discretion
with respect to the items to be seized.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, the district court did not err in denying the motion to
suppress. The affidavit referred to the list of specific items to
be seized and incorporated the detailed underlying factual
statement. Thus, it was not a “bare bones” affidavit. See United
States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407-09 (5th Cir. 1999).
The search warrant referred to the affidavit and also
incorporated the underlying statement of facts which set out in
detail the reasons for the search for particular items. The
incorporation of the detailed statement satisfied the particularity
requirement. See United States v. Shugart, 117 F.3d 838, 845 (5th
Cir. 1997).
The evidence also supports the finding that Agent Palmer acted
in good faith and, thus, even assuming that the search warrant did
not satisfy the particularity requirement, the good faith exception
applies to uphold the validity of the search. Shurgart, 117 F.3d
at 844-46. Further, based on the results of the extensive
investigation made prior to the issuance of the warrant, the
district court did not err in determining that there was probable
cause for the search. See United States v. Brown, 941 F.2d 1300,
1302 (5th Cir. 1991).
No. 02-60476
-3-
Mars also argues that the district court did not properly
consider his request for a downward departure based on U.S.S.G.
§ 5H1.4. Mars argues that the district court misunderstood its
ability to depart downward because it justified denying the motion
based on sustaining Mars’ objection regarding the scope of his
relevant conduct.
Because the district court did not base its decision on an
erroneous belief that it lacked authority to depart, the ruling on
the motion to depart is not subject to review. United States v.
Yanez-Huerta, 207 F.3d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 2000).
Mars’ conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.