Woo

MEMORANDUM **

Manson Woo appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress videotapes seized pursuant to a search warrant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1294(1), and affirm the district court’s decision.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recount them in detail except as necessary. Whether a search warrant describes items to be seized with sufficient specificity is reviewed de novo. United States v. Reeves, 210 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.2000), citing United States v. Noushfar, 78 F.3d 1442, 1447 (9th Cir. 1996). We review the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress relating to a search warrant de novo. United States v. Jordan, 291 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir.2002).

Woo does not dispute that there was probable cause to issue the warrant. He argues instead the warrant was impermissibly broad in that it authorized the seizure of all the videotapes on the premises, not just counterfeit tapes. In determining whether a warrant is sufficiently specific, we consider: “(1) whether probable cause exists to seize all items of a particular type described in the warrant, (2) whether the warrant sets out objective standards…