See United States v. Accardo, 749 F.2d 1477, 1481 (11th Cir.1985). We acknowledge that the warrant in this case was, on its face, clearly insufficient under the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, the undisputed testimony of Agent Kiper establishes that Attachment B, which contained a list of twelve specific items to be seized from Cash Today’s offices, was attached to the affidavit and that the issuing magistrate judge reviewed the entire affidavit in Agent Kiper’s presence. A reasonable inference may be drawn from these facts that the magistrate judge read all of the materials presented to her, including Attachment B, and thus was aware of the scope of the search she was authorizing. Cf. Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 561 n. 4, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 1292 n. 4, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004) (<HOLDING>). B. Trial Errors We review the cumulative
holding that when a warrant did not describe the items to be seized at all it was so obviously deficient that we must regard the search as warrantless  holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because facts made known to magistrate did not establish at time warrant was issued the required nexus between the contraband to be seized which was mailed to defendants post office box and defendants home holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid and finding in the alternative that even if the warrant were found to be deficient the seized evidence was admissible under the good faith exception holding warrant describing items to be seized as a twostory blue house invalid where petitioner did not alert the magistrate to the defect  and the court therefore cannot know whether the magistrate was aware of the scope of the search he was authorizing holding unconstitutional a search executed on a warrant that failed to list with particularity the items to be seized even where the supporting application contained such a list and the warrant was approved by a magistrate