When officers executed the search warrant they discovered there were multiple residences in the building. In defendant’s part of the building, they saw his mail and were confident that they were searching the right place. “Given these facts, the Court has no basis to conclude that the officers’ search unreasonably exceeded the area allowed in the warrant in that they searched only Defendant’s residence. Moreover, consistent with the directives of Garrison and Ritter, as the officers’ search progressed and they realized the structure contained an area not accessible from Defendant’s residence, they adhered to the obligation “to exclude [those areas for which probable cause was not established] from the scope of the requested warrant.” 480 U.S. at 87; 416 F.3d at 266. Thus, this is not a case where evidence seized during the search must be suppressed—there came no point in time during the search where executing officers searched any area other than Defendant’s residence. This is a critical distinction between the facts of this case and those presented in Garrison and Ritter.” United States v. Roman-Polanco, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60739 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2019).