Sierra-Penaloza

MEMORANDUM **

Armando Sierra-Penaloza challenges his conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) on two grounds. He argues that the district court erred by not suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to the wiretap of his cellular phone and by not dismissing the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act. We affirm his conviction.

The thirty-eight page affidavit submitted in support of the wiretap application did contain a “full and complete statement of the facts” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (l)(b). It discussed what investigative techniques had been tried, the success (or failure) of those techniques, and why other techniques not yet tried were unlikely to be successful. Assuming without deciding that some of the affidavit’s statements are “boiler plate,” read as a whole, the affidavit is still adequately supported by case-specific observations and the agent’s personal experience. United States v. Canales Gomez, 358 F.3d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir.2004); see United States v. Baker, 589 F.2d 1008, 1012-13 (9th Cir.1979); cf. United States v. Blackmon, 273 F.3d 1204, 1210 (9th Cir.2001).

The issuing judge did not abuse his discretion in determining…