Argued: September 20, 2019
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
Chief District Judge. (3:18-cr-00023-GMG-RWT-1)
David Moss, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Kay Omps-Botteicher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE
OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
William J. Powell, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge.
Jones entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in
possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g). On appeal, he challenges the denial of his motion to
suppress various ammunition and ammunition components seized
from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. The warrant,
which authorized a search for evidence of "threats of
terrorist acts" (terrorist threats) under W.Va. Code
§ 61-6-24, was based on a series of threats that Jones
made online against members of law enforcement.
argues that the search warrant was invalid for two reasons.
First, he asserts that the warrant lacked probable cause on
its face, because his statements did not constitute terrorist
threats under West Virginia law, and because the affidavit
submitted by police to obtain the warrant (the warrant
affidavit) failed to establish the required nexus between his
residence and the evidence sought. Second, Jones
alternatively maintains that even if the warrant was facially
valid, the magistrate's probable cause determination was
undermined by the omission of several statements from the
warrant affidavit. Jones claims that he made a substantial
preliminary showing that these omissions were both
intentional and material, and thus separately challenges the
district court's denial of his request for an evidentiary
hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154
our review, we conclude that the search warrant was supported
by probable cause, and that the alleged omissions in the
warrant affidavit were immaterial to the magistrate's
probable cause determination. We therefore affirm the
district court's judgment.
recount the facts presented to the state magistrate who
issued the challenged warrant. Owens ex rel. Owens v.
Lott, 372 F.3d 267, 277 (4th Cir. 2004). Because the
district court denied Jones' suppression motion, we state
the evidence in the light most favorable to ...