Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

United States v. Claibon Burrus

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-5315
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Panel: Richard Allen Griffin, John Kenneth Bush, John Baylor Nalbandian

• Judges: Richard Allen Griffin; John K. Bush; John B. Nalbandian

• Opinion

• Authorities (13)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (5.7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 26a0130n.06

No. 25-5315
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Mar 12, 2026
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Plaintiff–Appellee,
) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
v.
)
CLAIBON BURRUS, )
) OPINION
Defendant–Appellant. )

Before: GRIFFIN, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Claibon Burrus pleaded guilty to possession with intent

to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and felon in possession of

a firearm. As a result, the district court sentenced him to 260 months in prison. On appeal, Burrus

challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate and his motions to suppress. We

AFFIRM.

I.

In 2020, officers began investigating the drug overdose and death of a woman, J.O. Next

to her deceased body, officers found fentanyl and drug use paraphernalia. As part of the

investigation, a confidential informant told investigators that J.O. frequently purchased drugs from

“Yai,” a Black, bald male who sold drugs and who had a phone number ending in 7846. The

confidential source also told investigators that Yai lived and stored narcotics at 3038 Brookdale in

Memphis, Tennessee.
No. 25-5315, United States v. Burrus

In January 2021, Detective Onrico Atkins with the Memphis Police Department (MPD)

applied for a search warrant for call records and GPS information associated with the phone

number noted above. As part of his affidavit for the search warrant, Detective Atkins disclosed

that J.O.’s boyfriend told investigators that she would frequently contact her drug dealer known as

“Yay,” and he provided the subject phone number. Detective Atkins also declared that officers

learned that the individual using the phone had contacted other known drug dealers. During their

investigation, an undercover officer called the phone number, attempting to schedule a narcotics

purchase. A man answered the call, but he refused to arrange a sale because he did not recognize

the undercover officer as a customer. Based on the affidavit, a magistrate judge found probable

cause and issued a warrant to search the phone number records.

As the investigation into the death of J.O. continued, Sergeant Jonathan Overly with the

MPD applied for a warrant to search the house located at 3038 Brookdale. As the affiant, Sergeant

Overly disclosed that the confidential informant had indicated that “Yai” lived and stored narcotics

at that address, and that he had seen Yai meet with individuals at various locations to sell drugs.

The confidential informant also described the vehicle Yai drove, including the license plate.

According to the affidavit, when Overly and Atkins surveilled the Brookdale house, they saw

Burrus leave in a vehicle with the identical license plate. They also observed Burrus meet with

individuals, hand over unknown objects for cash, drive slowly, and return home with the cash—

all actions indicative of drug trafficking. Given this information, a magistrate judge found

probable cause and issued a warrant to search the Brookdale residence.

In the house, officers found drugs, six firearms, over $11,000 in cash, and a key labeled

“Move N Store.”

2
No. 25-5315, United States v. Burrus

Finally, Sergeant Timothy Bogue applied for warrants to search three storage units at a U-

Store Self Storage, providing identical information for each. In the affidavits for those warrants,

Bogue described the items found in the Brookdale house—including the “Move N Store” key. He

also described how Burrus used family and associates to aid in his drug trafficking, and that, during

jail calls, Burrus expressed concern over evidence that officers had not yet discovered. One

particular associate told Burrus that the evidence was “secure” and that she “ha[d] a key.” R. 41-

2, Storage Unit Search Warrant, PageID 74.

The affidavits for the warrants stated that one of the storage units was secured by a “Move

N Store” lock, bearing the same brand name as the key found at the house on Brookdale. What is

more, U-Store employees identified Burrus as the man who paid in cash for two units. Based on

this information, Overly had his K9 dog “Rocky” sniff two of the three storage units, according to

the affidavit. Rocky positively alerted to the presence of drugs in both storage units (although only

one of the units ended up containing drugs). Based on this information, a magistrate judge found

probable cause, and he issued warrants to search all three storage units.

In one of the units, officers found cellphones, a rifle, and ammunition. In another, officers

recovered various firearms, scales, and drugs. In the third storage unit, officers did not recover

anything. This last storage unit, which was empty, was one of the units to which Rocky had

positively alerted.

In 2021, a grand jury returned a multi-count indictment against Burrus. Burrus moved to

suppress the search of his home and storage units, claiming a lack of nexus between the alleged

criminal activity and the places searched. The district court denied his motion. Burrus also moved

to suppress the record search of the phone number ending in 7846, and the district court denied

that motion as well.

3
No. 25-5315, United States v. Burrus

In 2024, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment. A year later, Burrus pleaded

guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine (Count

1), possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking (Count 9), and felon in possession of

a firearm (Count 10). The written plea agreement included an appeal waiver and stated that Burrus

entered into the plea freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. The agreement permitted him to appeal

his sentence, but only if it exceeded the maximum permitted by statute or was the result of an

upward departure from the Guidelines range. The agreement also permitted Burrus to appeal the

denial of his two motions to suppress. Otherwise, it noted that Burrus waived his right to appeal

his conviction and sentence.

At the change-of-plea hearing, the district court questioned Burrus about the agreement to

ensure he understood its terms and the rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty. Burrus affirmed

that he had entered into it of his own volition and that he understood the terms.

More than seven months later, Burrus moved to vacate his guilty plea, arguing that a

strained relationship with his attorney impacted his ability to understand his plea agreement. The

district court denied the motion.

At sentencing, the district court determined the Guidelines range to be 384 to 465 months.

Noting that a sentence of that length would be severe, the district court departed downwards from

the Guidelines and imposed a sentence of 260 months in prison. Burrus timely appealed.

II.

Burrus first challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate his guilty plea.

However, for us to reach the merits of Burrus’s argument, he must demonstrate that he has

preserved his right to appeal. See United States v. Mendez-Santana, 645 F.3d 822, 828 (6th Cir.

2011). He has not done so.

4
No. 25-5315, United States v. Burrus

Whether a defendant has waived certain appellate rights in a valid plea agreement is a

question we review de novo. United States v. Detloff, 794 F.3d 588, 592 (6th Cir. 2015). When a

defendant knowingly and voluntarily enters into a plea agreement, he “routinely” waives certain

rights through an appeal waiver. United States v. Ellis, 115 F.4th 497, 500 (6th Cir. 2024); see

also Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232, 238–39 (2019). An appeal waiver precludes appellate review

if “(1) the defendant’s claim falls within the scope of the appeal waiver provision; and (2) the

defendant ‘knowingly and voluntarily’ agreed to the plea agreement and waiver.” United States

v. Milliron, 984 F.3d 1188, 1193 (6th Cir. 2021).

Burrus’s claim falls within the scope of the waiver provision, and he also knowingly and

voluntarily agreed to the plea agreement and waiver. Thus, his challenge to the district court’s

denial of his motion to vacate is necessarily waived.

Consider first the scope of the waiver provision in Burrus’s plea agreement. Per its terms,

Burrus “waives all rights . . . to appeal any sentence imposed or to appeal the manner in which the

sentence was imposed.” R. 93, Plea Agreement, PageID 267. Burrus also “agrees to waive his

right to challenge his conviction and sentence.” Id. The agreement explicitly permits Burrus to

appeal just two issues: his sentence (but only if it exceeds the maximum permitted by statute or is

the result of an upward departure from the Guidelines range) and the district court’s denial of his

motions to suppress. Nothing more. Indeed, the appellate waiver in the agreement makes clear

that Burrus waived all other rights on appeal.

We are bound by the terms of the appeal waiver. See Ellis, 115 F.4th at 500 (“[We] enforce

an appeal waiver according to its terms to ‘give effect to the intent of the parties as expressed by

the plain language in the plea agreement.’” (quoting United States v. Beals, 698 F.3d 248, 256 (6th

5
No. 25-5315, United States v. Burrus

Cir. 2012))). Recognizing this and that Burrus’s challenge does not fit within one of the preserved

exceptions, we conclude that the scope of the waiver subsumes Burrus’s claim.

Next we address whether Burrus knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the appeal waiver,

which we answer in the affirmative. Burrus signed the written plea agreement, representing that

he “freely, knowingly, and voluntarily” entered into the agreement. R. 93, Plea Agreement,

PageID 265. The change-of-plea hearing transcript reflects the same. At the hearing, the district

court questioned Burrus at length about the plea agreement and the indictment, including the

appellate rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty. Burrus stated that he understood the terms in

the plea agreement and he entered into it freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. Simply put, the record

shows that the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy and Burrus understood the rights

he waived by pleading guilty. See Ellis, 115 F.4th at 501 (noting that once a district court ensures

a defendant understands the rights he is waiving by pleading guilty, the defendant’s “admissions

at the plea hearing serve as a ‘formidable barrier’ to later claims that the defendant misunderstood

something about the plea”).

For these reasons, we decline to consider the merits of Burrus’s motion to vacate.

III.

Burrus next argues that the district court erred when it denied his motions to suppress the

search of his cellphone records, residence, and storage units. We review the district court’s factual

findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d

518, 523 (6th Cir. 2006). In so doing, we view the evidence in the “light most likely to support

the district court’s decision.” Id. (quoting United States v. Williams, 962 F.3d 1218, 1221 (6th Cir.

1992)).

6
No. 25-5315, United States v. Burrus

A.

Burrus contends that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the search

of his cellphone records because the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause.

Specifically, he alleges that the confidential informant was unreliable, the information was stale,

and the good-faith exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), does not apply because

the affidavit is “bare bones.” Given that the Leon good faith exception applies regardless of the

probable cause determination, we find his argument unavailing.

Under Leon and its progeny, evidence is admissible despite any defects in the magistrate

judge’s probable cause analysis if the officers relied in good faith on a facially valid warrant to

conduct the search. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 905; United States v. Christian, 925 F.3d 305, 312 (6th

Cir. 2019) (en banc). In this inquiry, we ask “whether a reasonably well trained officer would

have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s authorization.” Leon, 468 U.S. at

905 n.23. “Only when the answer is ‘yes’ is suppression appropriate.” United States v. White, 874

F.3d 490, 496 (6th Cir. 2017).

The Leon good faith-exception does not apply if the affidavit to support the search warrant

is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that it is a “bare bones” affidavit—that is, if it only “states

suspicions, or conclusions, without providing some underlying factual circumstances regarding

veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge.” Christian, 925 F.3d at 312 (quoting United States

v. Washington, 380 F.3d 236, 241 n.4 (6th Cir. 2004)). This is a high burden to satisfy; an affidavit

must be “woefully deficient” to meet this standard. Id. For example, an affidavit is bare bones if

it solely declares the affiant’s belief that probable cause has been shown, demonstrates mere

guesswork, or is totally devoid of facts to support probable cause or is so vague as to render it

conclusory. White, 874 F.3d at 496.

7
No. 25-5315, United States v. Burrus

By contrast, if we can identify even “a minimally sufficient nexus between the illegal

activity and the place to be searched,” then the affidavit is not bare bones and reliance upon it is

reasonable. United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 596 (6th Cir. 2004). Indeed, all that is

required for the good faith exception to apply is “some modicum of evidence, however slight”

between the alleged illegal activity and the place to be searched. White, 874 F.3d at 497 (quoting

United States v. Laughton, 409 F.3d 744, 749 (6th Cir. 2005)).

Here, the affidavit in support of the search warrant for Burrus’s phone records is a far cry

from a bare bones affidavit. The affidavit reveals that the affiant is an experienced officer with

specialized training in drug investigations. It also declares that J.O.’s mother and boyfriend told

officers that J.O. was a recovering drug addict, and that she would contact her drug dealer named

“Yay” at the phone number ending in 7846 to purchase drugs in public areas. The affidavit also

declares that officers discovered the subject phone number to have been used to contact other

known drug dealers. And during this investigation, an undercover officer called the phone number,

attempting to purchase drugs. Although the man answering the phone call said he would not sell

to the undercover officer, the reason he gave for refusing the sale—he did not recognize the officer

“as a usual customer”—confirmed that the phone number was used for drug sales. R. 68-1,

Affidavit for Cellphone Records, PageID 157. In sum, the affidavit contained information about

the extensive experience of the affiant, the relation between J.O.’s drug habits and the subject

phone number, the phone’s contact with other known drug dealers, and the undercover officer’s

experience calling the phone number in an attempt to plan a controlled buy. Based on this

information, the affidavit is not so lacking in probable cause so as to render the officers’ reliance

on it unreasonable. See White, 874 F.3d at 497.

8
No. 25-5315, United States v. Burrus

B.

Finally, Burrus alleges that the affidavits for the search of his residence and storage units

did not show a nexus between the items to be seized and any criminal behavior. He also argues

that the K9 was unreliable because it made a false alert on one of the three storage units searched.

Here again, the Leon good-faith exception defeats Burrus’s challenge to the exclusionary rule.

Regardless of the probable cause determination, Leon precludes suppression.

The affidavit for the search of Burrus’s residence presents at least a modicum of evidence

that Burrus engaged in drug trafficking activities and that he stored drugs there. See White, 874

F.3d at 497. It demonstrates that during officers’ investigation, an informant stated that “Yai,” a

drug dealer, lived and stored narcotics at the address. Officers surveilled the house and those who

frequented it and observed behavior indicative of drug activity. That information, along with their

training and experience in drug trafficking, led investigators to believe that evidence of drug

trafficking would be found at Burrus’s home. Based on the affidavit, we cannot say that a

reasonably well-trained officer would have reason to know that the search of the residence was, as

Burrus argues, illegal.

So too for the search of the storage units. The affidavits in support of the search warrants

reflect that officers searched Burrus’s residence and found drugs, cash, and cellphones containing

text messages about drug transactions. Officers also recovered a key labeled “Move N Store” and

believed it to belonged to a storage unit. U-store employees later identified Burrus as having paid

the monthly rental fee for the storage units, and officers noticed that one of the units had a lock

brand identical to the key found at Burrus’s home. Investigators then had a K9 dog named “Rocky”

sniff two of the units, and he alerted to both. The affiant also declared that, based on his training

and experience, drug traffickers often use storage units to hide evidence of trafficking.

9
No. 25-5315, United States v. Burrus

We conclude that affidavits supporting the search of Burrus’s residence and storage units

support an objectively reasonable, good-faith belief that the probable cause determination was

lawful. Thus, regardless of whether probable cause in fact existed, the Leon good-faith exception

would apply, and suppression of the seized evidence is inappropriate.

IV.

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

10