NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 19a0217n.06
No. 18-3708
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED
Apr 26, 2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
)
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
JESUS CARO LOPEZ, )
DISTRICT OF OHIO
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. The district court approved an application pursuant to Title III for the
interception of wire and electronic communications from two cell phones suspected of being used
in a drug trafficking organization. The interception led to the indictment of Jesus Caro Lopez and
twelve co-defendants on a variety of drug trafficking charges. Caro Lopez moved to suppress the
evidence collected through the wiretaps; he also moved for a Franks hearing. See Franks v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). The district court denied his motion and his request for a hearing.
Caro Lopez then entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, two counts of distribution of methamphetamine, one
count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and one count of use of a communication facility
in a felony related to controlled substances. His plea reserved the right to appeal the district court’s
denial of the suppression motion.
No. 18-3708, United States v. Lopez
On appeal, Caro Lopez claims that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress
because the warrant affidavit neither established probable cause to support the Title III wiretap
applications nor complied with Title III’s necessity doctrine. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c). He also
claims the district court erred by denying his request for a Franks hearing.
In a well-reasoned opinion, the district court ably summarized the ninety-one-page warrant
affidavit and demonstrated why that affidavit both established probable cause and comported with
the necessity doctrine. The district court also explained that, although one statement in the warrant
affidavit was inaccurate, Caro Lopez had failed for two reasons to establish his entitlement to a
Franks hearing. First, he had failed to meet the “heavy burden” of making “a substantial
preliminary showing” that the statement was either intentionally false or made in reckless disregard
of the truth. United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295, 304–05 (6th Cir. 2002). Second, he had not
demonstrated that, without the inaccurate statement, the Title III order would not have issued.
Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56.
After carefully reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court
has determined that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed. The district court’s opinion
carefully and correctly states the facts and the governing law and explains its reasoning, with which
we agree. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion. We, therefore, AFFIRM
the judgment for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion and order dated March 13, 2018.
-2-