Sorensen

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Dale Sorensen appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and its calculation of his advisory sentencing guidelines range. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 . We affirm Sorensen’s conviction, vacate his sentence and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we do not repeat it here.

I

We review the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress de novo and its underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Mayer, 530 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.2008). We may affirm the denial of a motion to suppress “on any basis fairly supported by the record.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted).

Sorensen argues that the warrant issued for the residence that he shared with Sandra Mitchell was not supported by probable cause because the officer who sought the warrant deliberately withheld information from the magistrate judge about Mitchell’s drug use, her mental state and her invocation of the right to counsel at the start of her interview. 1 The magistrate judge was familiar with the circumstances surrounding…