Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 09-4143
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00339-REP-1)
Submitted:
DAVIS,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
May 6, 2010
HAMILTON,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin
possession
with
C.
intent
Thompkins,
to
Jr.,
distribute
was
fifty
convicted
grams
or
more
of
of
an
aggregate
sentence
of
300
months
in
He
prison.
We affirm.
I
Prior to trial, Thompkins moved to suppress evidence
seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant.
court
determined
that
the
affidavit
supporting
the
The
search
below.
Cir. 2009).
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches
and seizures.
shall
issue,
affirmation,
upon
probable
and
particularly
Further, no warrants
cause
supported
describing
the
by
oath
or
to
be
place
The
Id.
totality
of
the
circumstances,
whether
there
is
fair
(1983).
In reviewing the validity of a search warrant, the
duty
of
reviewing
court
is
simply
to
ensure
that
the
cause
The
(internal
existed.
Id.
magistrates
probable
cause
quotation
marks
determination
is
the
district
court
properly
denied
the
residence.
DEA
experience
Special
Agent
investigating
warrant.
In
informant,
who
his
drug
affidavit,
had
provided
Bertsch,
who
trafficking,
he
recited
reliable
had
extensive
applied
that
for
the
confidential
information
in
previous
served
cocaine
store
summons
investigation.
and
purchased
at
BJ
that
had
products
address
also
in
connection
visited
commonly
used
the
to
with
hydroponics
cultivate
marijuana.
The affidavit further stated that Thompkins residence
had used an average of 3008 kilowatt hours of power during each
billing cycle between December 2007 and May 2008.
During the
the
interior
cultivation
of
marijuana.
Additionally,
had no reported income since 2003, and Agent Bertsch stated that
drug dealers typically do not report illegal income.
Based on
if
the
affidavit
did
not
establish
probable
the
Supreme
held
that
evidence
obtained
from
if
the
officers
objectively reasonable.
reliance
on
Id. at 922-23.
the
warrant
was
objectively
reasonable,
including
where
the
affidavit
case
falls
Id. at 923.
within
this
exception,
characterizing
the
a
power
reliable
company,
confidential
sheriffs
informant;
department,
and
official
Virginia
II
The
information
affidavit
gleaned
supporting
from
power
the
use
warrant
records
referred
subpoenaed
to
from
ascertain
Dominion
as
Dominion
had
whether
represented
not
subpoena
in
produced
the
in
fact
affidavit.
certain
documents
was
He
served
stated
requested
on
that
in
residences
identified
in
the
affidavit.
All
records
were
copies
of
the
subpoenas.
Thompkins
attorney
subpoenas.
However,
he
told
the
court
that
someone
in
subpoena
counsel
or
having
questioned
provided
whether
the
the
records
records
in
had
question.
been
Thus,
deliberately
district
court
denied
the
motion
for
court
again
denied
it.
Thompkins
now
questions
the
that
required.
Thompkins
Id.
failed
to
make
the
specific
showing
III
Thompkins
contends
that
counsel
was
ineffective
Claims
normally
raised
of
ineffective
before
the
assistance
district
court
of
via
counsel
28
are
[U.S.C.A.]
did
not
provide
effective
representation.
United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 191 (4th Cir. 2007); see United
States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
Because
ineffective
on
assistance
does
not
conclusively
appear
the
IV
We therefore affirm.