(1) there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant, (2) the Leon good faith exception does not apply, and (3) the seizure of the firearms in the office was beyond the scope of the search warrant and not justified by the plain view doctrine. “We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error” and review “Fourth Amendment seizures de novo.” United States v. Blom, 242 F.3d 799, 807 (8th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). 1. Probable Cause and Good Faith Abumayyaleh argues there was no probable cause to support the search warrant because the items listed in the affidavit were not actually stolen. Attempted receipt of stolen property is a felony in the state of Minnesota, for which impossibility is not a valid defense. See State v. Bird, 285 N.W.2d 481, 482 (Minn.1979) (<HOLDING>); see also Minn.Stat. § 609.17, subd. 2 (“An
holding the defense of legal impossibility does not bar  prosecution for either attempt or conspiracy holding that suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request by the defense violates due process where evidence is material either to guilt or punishment irre spective of the good faith of the prosecution recognizing a potential conflict when defense counsel is currently representing in another matter either the victim of the crime or a prosecution witness holding that foreign states prosecution did not bar subsequent florida prosecution for same conduct holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar