Farinas

MEMORANDUM **

John F. Farinas appeals his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1) and 924(a)(2), Felon in Possession of a Firearm. Farinas argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the search warrant affidavit was a “bare bones” affidavit that failed to contain sufficient particularized facts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized in a search de novo. See United States v. Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.2001). The determination of probable cause in issuing a warrant will not be reversed *781 absent a finding of clear error. See United States v. Gil, 58 F.3d 1414, 1418 (9th Cir.1995).

The district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress because the magistrate “had a 'substantial basis for ... concluding]’ that probable cause existed.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1984); United States v. Bertrand, 926 F.2d 838, 841 (9th Cir.1991). FBI Special Agent Manuel Zappata, Jr.’s affidavit established the reliability of confidential informants (Cl) 1, 2, and 3: CI-1 had provided…