“supplies little information concerning an informant’s reliability”). Nor was the information contained in the affidavit stale. Evidence tending to establish the existence of an ongoing criminal enterprise “will generally defeat a claim of staleness.” United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554, 573 (6th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the information in the affidavit (particularly the observations of Special Agent Chis-dock, which occurred over several months) made clear that Grooms’s drug-trafficking activities at the Park Entrance Grocery were of an ongoing nature. Thus the five-month gap between Chisdock’s last undercover visit to the store (in April 2009) and the issuance of the warrant (in September 2009) did not render the underlying information stale. See id. (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d
holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor holding that a 23month gap was insufficient to show staleness holding that a threeyear gap was insufficient to demonstrate staleness where the criminal activity was ongoing holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation holding evidence of one possible burglary before incident at issue insufficient to demonstrate prior criminal activity