entrenched activity. CI-1 told Forey that the appellant built his barn as a haven for his illicit marijuana-growing enterprise. Both informants expressed their belief that the appellant was a major player in a long-term cartel that involved several independent marijuana growers. The warrant did not target items of transient existence, but, rather, featured chattels of relatively dear value and solid construction (including hardware commonly used in the growing and distribution of marijuana), likely to be in service for several years. Since these items possessed enduring worth and utility, information that might be considered ancient history in considering the probable whereabouts of more transient goods would be timely here. See United States v. McKeever, 5 F.3d 863, 866 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sturmoski, 971 F.2d 452, 457
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 that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized 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 that defendants motion to suppress was properly denied because the actual items seized fell within the valid portions of the warrant holding that information need not be as current when the items to be seized include hydroponic marijuanagrowing apparatuses