031058P.pdf   07/11/2005  United States  v.  Antonio Rodriguez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  03-1058
                          and No:  03-1316
   District of Nebraska   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, Riley and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - criminal law. District court did not err in refusing to 
   grant a Franks hearing as the warrant application was sufficient to 
   establish probable cause without the challenged information and 
   defendant failed to show the officer supplying the challenged information 
   lied or recklessly disregarded the truth; warrantless search of auto was 
   supported by probable cause to believe that the car contained drugs; 
   evidence seized from the car could be used to support application for a 
   warrant to search defendant's motel room; evidence was sufficient to 
   support conspiracy conviction; drug quantity calculations were supported 
   by overwhelming evidence; juror's contact with prosecution witness 
   during the trial was properly addressed by the district court, and 
   defendant did not show any prejudice from the contact, which did not 
   concern any facts of the trial; district court erred in reducing defendant's 
   offense level and in granting a downward departure based on defendant's 
   age and his likely future rehabilitation; case remanded for resentencing. 
  
031058P.pdf   05/19/2004  United States  v.  Antonio Rodriguez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  03-1058
                          and No:  03-1316
   District of Nebraska   
   Criminal case - criminal law. Minor descriptive inaccuracies in the 
   affidavit submitted in support of search warrant application did not 
   establish deliberate lies or reckless disregard of the truth, and the district
   court did not err in denying defendant's request for a Franks hearing, 
   especially in light of the fact that the uncontested information in the 
   affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause; warrantless search of 
   vehicle was justified by probable cause to believe the vehicle contained 
   drugs; co-defendant gave consent to search her motel room; evidence was 
   sufficient to support conspiracy conviction; drug quantity calculations 
   were not clearly erroneous; district court's refusal to grant a mistrial after
   being informed a juror had extrajudicial conduct with a state trooper was 
   not error as the court investigated the matter and defendant's counsel 
   agreed an admonishment to the jury, which the court gave, was sufficient 
   remedy for the communication; district court erred in granting a 
   downward departure based on its finding the case fell outside the 
   heartland, as none of the factors the court relied on - age, drug quantity or 
   future rehabilitation - were sufficient to take the case out of the norm; 
   case remanded for resentencing. 
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author]