Case 1:14-mj-00228-JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 8 of 21 -8enumerated exceptions set forth in the subsection (b)(1)(A). 6 Id. “A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.; see also Gomez, 490 U.S. at 868. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s order denying the government’s application for a search warrant under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 will be reviewed to determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. 7 II. FOURTH AMENDMENT The Fourth Amendment provides that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” amend. IV. U.S. Const. “As the text of the Fourth Amendment indicates, the 6 A “motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action,” are not included in this grant of authority to magistrate judges. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A). 7 “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted).