United States of America v. Tommy D. Jarrell

*The Honorable David D. Dowd, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio,
sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0089n.06
Filed: February 7, 2005
No. 04-5090
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TOMMY D. JARRELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
On Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee
/
Before: GUY and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; DOWD, District Judge. *
PER CURIAM. Defendant, Tommy D. Jarrell, entered a conditional plea of guilty
to one count of attempted manufacture of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and
841(b)(1)(D), while reserving the right to appeal from the district court’s order denying his
motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his property. This appeal challenges
the district court’s determinations that (1) the affidavit provided probable cause to support
the issuance of the search warrant, and (2) even assuming the affidavit was deficient, the
search was still valid under the good-faith exception found in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S.
897 (1984). On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-5090 2
court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. United States v.
Hurst, 228 F.3d 751, 756 (6th Cir. 2000). The evidence, however, must be reviewed in the
light most likely to support the district court’s decision. Id. The district court’s ultimate
determination that the Leon good-faith exception applies is a legal conclusion, which is
reviewed de novo. United States v. Leake, 998 F.2d 1359, 1366 (6th Cir. 1993). After
review of the record in this case, the applicable law, and the arguments presented on appeal,
we find the district court did not err in either respect. Because issuance of a detailed opinion
by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose, we AFFIRM for the
reasons set forth in the district court’s written opinion filed on September 30, 2003.

-- 2 of 2 --