United States v. Rivas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 10, 2025
• Docket: 24-50209
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50209 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-50209 FILED February 10, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Dylan James Rivas,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:20-CR-368-1 ______________________________

Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Dylan James Rivas was found guilty of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Rivas challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-50209 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2025

No. 24-50209

We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. See United States v. Wright, 777 F.3d 769, 773 (5th Cir. 2015). Rivas fails to argue, on appeal, that he had any reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the place being searched, see United States v. Iraheta, 764 F.3d 455, 461 (5th Cir. 2014), and has consequently abandoned any claim that he had standing to challenge the search, see United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 447 (5th Cir. 2010). Second, Rivas contends that the district court erred in applying an enhanced base offense level, pursuant to the cross-reference provision in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) in conjunction with U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(a) and U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1(a)(1). Because Rivas’s claim cannot succeed even under the more lenient standard of review, see United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008), this court pretermits any issues concerning whether Rivas properly preserved his claim in the district court, see United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008). Even assuming the district court erred in applying the enhanced base offense level, any error was harmless. See United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712, 718 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Guzman-Rendon, 864 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.