United States v. Larry Amaro

MEMORANDUM

Larry Amaro, Ernest Killinger, Gerardo Mora, and Jason Stewart-Hanson (collec tively, “Appellants”) appeal their convictions for various drug-related offenses. Killinger also appeals his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court did not err in denying Appellants’ motion to suppress wiretap evidence. The affidavit showed that the FBI contemplated or employed a combination of at least eleven different traditional investigative techniques over the course of a year before seeking a wiretap, and still had been unable to accomplish its goals. Further, the affidavit explained in thorough and case-specific detail why other investigative procedures would be too dangerous or unlikely to succeed in developing an effective case against all the persons involved in the DTO conspiracy. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (l)(c); see also United States v. McGuire, 307 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.2002). The FBI’s investigative purpose to dismantle the DTO conspiracy was not so general or vast “as to manufacture necessity in all circumstances.” United States v. Blackmon, 273 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir.2001). The FBI was not…