court examined the entire affidavit, including the challenged statement, and concluded that it established probable cause to search Mr. Looney’s residence. The district court’s factual finding that the affiant officer did not deliberately or recklessly include the false statement in the affidavit cannot be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755, 758 (5th Cir.2003). Based on our review of the record, we find no basis to overturn the district court’s assessment. Furthermore, assuming that Mr. Looney did not waive his argument regarding the other statements in the affidavit that he challenges for the first time on appeal, the district court did not plainly err by failing, sua sponte, to excise those statements. See Pope, 467 F.3d at 919 n. 20 (<HOLDING>). Mr. Looney presented no evidence at the
holding that omission was not plain error holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that assuming suppression argument not waived there was no plain error holding that suppression issue was waived under rule 12 but then noting that the court did not find plain error in the district courts admission of the evidence holding that suppression issue not raised to the district court was waived under rule 12