United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 2, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51110
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN ANTONIO ESQUIVEL-RANGEL,
also known as Juan Antonio Esquivel,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-03-CR-140-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Antonio Esquivel-Rangel entered a conditional guilty
plea to counts 1, 2, and 3, of an indictment charging him with
aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine and marijuana with
intent to distribute and with aiding and abetting the possession
of a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking crime.
Esquivel contends that the district court should have suppressed
evidence obtained during a search of his residence because the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-51110
-2-
search was pursuant to a warrant supported by a facially invalid
affidavit. We review this issue de novo. United States v.
Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 709 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 910
(2002).
“Evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable
good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even
though the affidavit on which the warrant was based was
insufficient to establish probable cause.” United States v.
Cisneros, 112 F.3d 1272, 1278 (5th Cir. 1997) (internal brackets
and quotation marks omitted). “An officer may rely in good faith
on the validity of a warrant so long as the warrant is supported
by more than a ‘bare bones affidavit.’” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted); see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920
(1984). “An affidavit is ‘bare bones’ if it is so deficient in
demonstrating probable cause that it renders an officer’s belief
in [the existence of probable cause] completely unreasonable.”
Cisneros, 112 F.3d at 1278.
Most of the information in the affidavit was provided by an
informant and involved an admission by the informant of his own
involvement in drug trafficking. Esquivel contends that the
information provided by the informant was not sufficiently
corroborated. The fact that information provided by an informant
was against his own penal interests provides “substantial
corroboration.” See United States v. McKeever, 5 F.3d 863, 865
(5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573,
No. 03-51110
-3-
583–84 (1971). The facts and circumstances described in the
affidavit were sufficiently detailed. It would not have been
completely unreasonable for the agents executing the warrant to
conclude that the search warrant was supported by probable cause.
See Cisneros, 112 F.3d at 1278. The district court did not err
in refusing to exclude the evidence under the good-faith
exception to the exclusionary rule.
Esquivel argues also that the search warrant was not
supported by probable cause. Because the district court did not
err in refusing to exclude the evidence under the good-faith
exception to the exclusionary rule, we do not reach this issue.
See Cavazos, 288 F.3d at 709. The judgment is
AFFIRMED.