ed the defendant's involvement in a long-standing, ongoing pattern of criminal activity); United States v. Gayle, No. 08 CR 1244, 2009 WL 4667093, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2009) ("The continuous nature of the narcotics conspiracy charged in the Indictment and the facts set forth in the Warrant Affidavit establish that the February 2009 search was not impaired by staleness. The Warrant Affidavit described a narcotics conspiracy, of which [the defendant] was a critical member, that began in 2003 and continued through 2008."); Jones v. State, 338 S.W.3d 725, 738 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011), aff'd, 364 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (affidavit was not stale, but instead, "the affidavit adequately suggested a continuing criminal operation, including 'recently' obtained information from the first confidential informant [concerning the sale of narcotics at residence], from the affiant's own investigation, and from the second confidential informant who made the controlled buy."); Kelley v. State, No. 10-16-00232-CR, 2017 WL 2623062, at *5 (Tex. App.—Waco June 14, 2017, no pet.) ("the search-warrant affidavit [supported] conclusion that illegal 'activity of a protracted and continuous nature' was ongoing at [the defendant's] residence .... [because] the affidavit mentioned the controlled buy, as well as previous complaints to the Bryan Police Department regarding marihuana smells emanating from the residence and increased traffic at the residence. Furthermore, the affidavit notes that [the defendant] was known to be involved in the distribution of crack cocaine from her residence.").