CA4: Potentially glaring Franks claim proved immaterial

Defendant’s Franks claim was based on the fact that one Blount lived at the place to be searched, and Blount was associated with 7 addresses. Blount, however, had been in prison and couldn’t have lived there for a while. Nevertheless, removing everything with Blount from the affidavit for the search warrant, it still showed probable cause. “We have explained that ‘[a]n accused is generally not entitled to challenge the veracity of a facially valid search warrant affidavit.’” Franks is a narrow exception. United States v. Saunders, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31823 (4th Cir. Oct. 7, 2020).*

2254 petition denied for generality: “Green’s multiple briefs sweep in numerous other allegations. He questions how law enforcement were able to obtain a search warrant for his residence based solely on the MapQuest directions found in the getaway car, argues that a search of his residence by his parole officer ‘produced … nothing,’ [among other things]. … These arguments appear to be ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, since Green posits that ‘the government may have been forced to drop the case’ if his counsel had ‘taken the proper time to address these issues.’ … Without any elaboration or support, these unadorned allegations fail to show that Green’s convictions and sentence are the product of constitutional error.” United States v. Green, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185847 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2020).*