United States v. Barrientes

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 13, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40568
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS RODRIGUEZ BARRIENTES,
also known as Jesus Barrientes,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-01-CR-500-1
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Rodriguez Barrientes appeals his guilty-plea
conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The
Government argues that Barrientes’s only issue on appeal, the
denial of his suppression motion, was waived by the entry of an
unconditional guilty plea. However, review of the transcript of
the rearraignment hearing shows that Barrientes has preserved his
right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion because there

-- 1 of 2 --

2
is a clear indication of Barrientes’s intention to plead
conditionally, of his intention to appeal the denial of the motion
to suppress in particular, and the acquiescence of the Government
and the district court in the conditional plea. See United States
v. Wise, 179 F.3d 184, 187 (5th Cir. 1999).
Barrientes argues that his suppression motion should not
have been denied because the search warrant was supported only by
a “bare bones” affidavit. The averments in the affidavit were not
wholly conclusory but contained sufficiently detailed information
from which the magistrate could independently determine probable
cause. See United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1474 n.18 (5th
Cir. 1993). The officer corroborated several pieces of the
anonymous informant’s information, demonstrating the informant’s
reliability. See United States v. Jackson, 818 F.2d 345, 348 (5th
Cir. 1987). There was no requirement that all of the informant’s
tips be corroborated by subsequent police investigation in order to
be considered credible. See United States v. Blount, 123 F.3d 831,
836 (5th Cir. 1997)(en banc).
Because the affidavit in support of the search warrant
was not “bare bones,” the good-faith exception applied, and the
district court did not err in denying Barrientes’s suppression
motion. See United States v. Cisneros, 112 F.3d 1272, 1278 (5th
Cir. 1997). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --