to incorporate the affidavit,” and that preprinted language like that used here is insufficient. 920 F.2d 1028, 1032-33 (D.C.Cir.1990). The government concedes that Maxwell is indistinguishable from this case, and that this panel is without authority to overturn that prior decision. Appellee's Br. at 27 n.7; see United States v. Kanchanalak, 192 F.3d 1037, 1038 n. 1 (D.C.Cir. 1999). Thus, although at least one court has taken a path different from that of Maxwell, see United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1116-17 (2d Cir.1993), we cannot rely on the affidavit to constrain the language of the warrants. 3 . Pindell also contends that the plain view doctrine is inapplicable because the warrant applications did not list the notebooks even though the police knew of their re 38, 1543-44 (<HOLDING>). 6 . See United States v. Jones, 187 F.3d 210, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was required to justify officers search of stereo found in plain view (B) holding that the criminality of a knotted opaque party balloon found in plain view during a traffic stop was immediately apparent because the officer had probable cause to believe that the balloon contained an illegal substance (C) holding that a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic infraction has occurred (D) holding that the incriminating nature of an item was immediately apparent where the police officers had probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime (E) holding that the search of a balloon was justified under the plain view exception where the contraband nature of the balloon  was immediately apparent to the officer who seized it
(B)