Marshall

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Joseph Marshall appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, distribution of a controlled substance, and aiding and abetting. 18 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 846, 8 U.S.C. § 2 . The facts, contained in documents which remain under seal, are known to the parties.

Marshall argues that the warrant-issuing judge abused his discretion in approving certain wiretaps based on information provided in the wiretap applications and that the district judge erred in denying his motion for a Franks hearing. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); United States v. Ippolito, 774 F.2d 1482, 1485 (9th Cir.1985). We review de novo whether an application for a wiretap order is supported by a full and complete statement of the facts in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (1)(c), and we review the issuing judge’s decision on the necessity of the wiretap for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Blackmon, 273 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.2001). The wiretaps were necessary given the fact that other investigative techniques had revealed only a portion of Richard Veluz’s alleged criminal activities. The affidavits did…