USA v. Jose Pardo, et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-50419 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: PRO , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 06/06/2014 for Appellant Jorge Carrillo [13-50419]
Date Filed: 05/16/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
May 16, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:12-CR-234-2
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Defendant-Appellant Jorge Carrillo was convicted by a jury of one count
of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of
heroin. He was sentenced to serve 188 months in prison, to be followed by a
five-year term of supervised release; additionally, the court ordered Carrillo to
pay a $6000 fine and to forfeit $22,760. His only claim on appeal is that the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 05/16/2014
through the interception of wire communications. He contends that the record
reflected that agents had failed to follow him on his trips to Louisiana and that
the failure to conduct such standard surveillance refuted any contention that
normal investigative procedures had been tried and failed.
We apply a clear error standard when a party claims deficiencies in an
affidavit supporting a wiretap application. United States v. Kelley, 140 F.3d
596, 604 (5th Cir. 1998). An application seeking authorization for a wiretap
must state “whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and
failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be
too dangerous.” 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c).
In the instant case, the affidavits provided extensive facts reflecting the
failure of such traditional investigative techniques as surveillance and the use
of confidential informants. The affidavits also included explanations of why
other investigative acts, such as infiltration of the organization or questioning
of coconspirators, would likely not have succeeded.
The affidavits thus
satisfied the requirements of § 2518(1)(c). The government was not required
to prove that it exhausted every possible option before it could obtain
authorization for a wiretap. Kelley, 140 F.3d at 605; United States v. Webster,
734 F.2d 1048, 1055 (5th Cir. 1984). The agents’ failure to follow Carrillo to
Louisiana from Texas was based on a belief that Carrillo traveled out of state
to engage in horse racing and gambling. Carrillo’s contention that agents
should have pursued this line of investigation is insufficient to establish that
the district court clearly erred in denying the motion to suppress wiretap
evidence. See Kelley, 140 F.3d at 604; United States v. Hyde, 574 F.2d 856, 867
(5th Cir. 1978). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?