Martin

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm the district court’s denial of Martin’s second motion to controvert, in which Martin requested a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). Martin has not identified any false statements or *742 omissions in the affidavit that were made with “reckless disregard for the truth.” Id. at 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 .

Martin claims that the affidavit falsely misrepresented that IRC channels are like websites or emails and that agents have found child pornography “on these channels.” However, the affidavit describes IRC channels in detail, referring to them as “chat rooms,” not as websites or emails, and then specifically explains how pornography is exchanged “on” such channels. In the context of the affidavit, therefore, the phrase “on these channels” was not misleading.

Similarly, Martin claims that the affidavit misrepresented that the channels accessed by “Zarman” were “known pornography channels” because IRCs cannot be “known” for anything. The affidavit, however, explains how these channels were “known” for pornography, indicating that agents had conducted investigations in which individuals had downloaded…