United States v. Shanklin , 196 F. App'x 289 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60888
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BARON KEITH SHANKLIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:04-CR-55
--------------------
Before JOLLY, GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Baron Keith Shanklin challenges the denial of his motion to
suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. He
pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute 50
grams or more of cocaine base, but preserved his right to appeal
the denial of his suppression motion. In reviewing the denial of
a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search
warrant, we determine: (1) whether the good-faith exception to
the exclusionary rule applies; and (2) if not, whether probable
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 05-60888
-2-
cause supported the warrant. United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d
403, 407 (5th Cir. 1999).
Shanklin avers that certain information was omitted from the
affidavit upon which the warrant was issued. Specifically, he
contends that the issuing magistrate judge was not informed that
the informant was a paid informant, that he had an extensive
criminal history, and that he was a “probable drug user.”
Shanklin argues further that law enforcement officials failed to
corroborate any of the information provided by the informant and
that the issuing magistrate judge should have required such
independent corroboration.
The affiant’s confirmation and assertion that the informant
was reliable and the detailed information the informant furnished
provided the magistrate judge with a substantial basis for
crediting the informant’s statements. See United States v.
Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1312 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Marbury, 732 F.2d 390, 396-97 (5th Cir. 1984). Because the
totality of the circumstances established the informant’s
veracity and basis of knowledge, the district court did not err
when it denied Shanklin’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.