Avila

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant-Appellant Lario Javier Avila appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 , and his twenty-year mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 851 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

Avila first challenges the district court’s finding that the Government’s wiretap ap *587 plication established the necessity requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 2518 . 1 He also asserts that the district court erred when it refused to hold a Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), hearing to determine whether the Government misled the court as to the necessity of the wiretap.

The Government’s wiretap application must include “a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.” 2 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (l)(c). We have emphasized “the statutory presumption against this intrusive investigative method,” and interpreted these statutory prerequisites as a “necessity”…