[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-14275 MAY 22, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00051-CR-4-RH-WCS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NICHOLAS BRYANT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 22, 2006)
Before CARNES, BARKETT, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Bryant appeals his convictions for: (1) conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; (2) possession with
intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D); and
(3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, Bryant argues that his motion to suppress the
evidence, which was seized from his house pursuant to a search warrant, should
have been granted because: (1) there was no reference in the warrant affidavit to
the confidential informant’s (CI) veracity, reliability, or prior use; (2) the affiant
made a recklessly false statement when he said that he had reason to believe that
“illegal narcotics are being kept and sold” at Bryant’s residence; and (3) there was
no competent evidence to show ongoing drug activity or that Bryant was connected
to it from police surveillance of another individual.
We review the district court’s determination that an affidavit contains
probable cause de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v.
Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2000). We give due deference to the
inferences that the district court and law enforcement officers drew from the facts.
Id.
Based upon this record we cannot say that the district court erred. Because
there was sufficient corroborating information that was not stale in the search
warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, even assuming arguendo
2
that there was falsity in the officer’s statement, the district court did not err by
denying Bryant’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
3