Beltran
United States v. Beltran
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
*787 I. Beltran’s Appeal (No. 00-50123)
The district court found that Beltran participated in the drug transaction to make some money and that he was experienced in what he was doing. Based on its findings, the district court rejected the argument that Beltran was only a “mule” in this drug trafficking scheme and therefore was entitled to the minimal role reduction. 1 In light of our deferential review, 2 we cannot conclude that it erred in denying Beltran the minimal role reduction.
II. Haro-Ramirez’s Appeal (No. 00-50144)
A. Motion to Suppress Wiretap Evidence
Neither the Fourth Amendment nor 18 U.S.C. § 2518 requires that the Government establish probable cause as to each person named in a wiretap application. 4 Thus, Haro-Ramirez’s claim that the April 28, 1998, wiretap application failed to show probable cause as to him is irrelevant.
To the extent that Haro-Ramirez claims that there was no probable cause as to any person named in that application, he is wrong. Agent Gaffney, who had participated in over 500 narcotics investigations, submitted an affidavit in which he provided his…