examined “whether probable cause existed by looking primarily at the most recent relevant information and then the other information in the context of the contemporaneous information.” United States v. Reiner, 382 F.Supp.2d 195, 197-98 (D.Me.2005). The district court, therefore, relied primarily on the adult advertisements run by the DHC in 2003 and 2004, statements by confidential informants, the extensive cash deposits by the DHC through 2003, and the interstate nature of the DHC’s business in its determination that probable cause existed. Thus, the omitted information was irrelevant, and the district court did not commit clear error in refraining from ordering a Franks hearing on the basis of such information. See United States v. Rivera-Rosario, 300 F.3d 1, 20 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Ironically, after contending that the
holding that even if information in an affidavit was provided in reckless disregard of the truth appropriate course of action is to sever that information from the affidavit and determine whether sufficient information remained in order for the magistrate to find probable cause holding the trial courts failure to convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment after an affidavit was filed in response to the motion was harmless error where the affidavit had no impact on thedecisive statute of frauds issue holding that the defendants allegations that the warrant affidavit contained falsified information did not satisfy franks even though the defendants offer of proof consisted of twentynine 29 affidavits holding that a challenge to the truth of the affidavit was not sufficient for a franks hearing where defendant offered no evidence that the affiant knowingly or recklessly gave false statements holding that because the information omitted from the affidavit was immaterial to the investigation there was no error in denying defendants motion for a franks hearing