court’s denial of his suppression motion. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. Since we write primarily for the parties, we need not set forth the factual history of this case in detail. Williams filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the multiple searches of the house that resulted in him entering a conditional guilty plea to violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The plea was entered after the district court partially denied his motion to suppress physical evidence. Williams argues that: (1) the district court erred in finding that the first search warrant was supported by probable cause; and (2) the Leon “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 925, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (<HOLDING>). However, since the application of Leon is
recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule holding that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for officers failure to serve a warrant to the defendant before during or immediately after the search holding that courts can reject suppression motions posing no important fourth amendment questions by turning immediately to a consideration of the officers good faith holding that the fourth amendment remedy sought is suppression holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant