United States v. Saldana-Alaniz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 22, 2024
• Docket: 23-40658
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-40658 Document: 56-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2024

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

No. 23-40658 FILED August 22, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Alonso Saldana-Alaniz,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:22-CR-822-1 ______________________________

Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jose Saldana-Alaniz entered a conditional plea of guilty to possession of ammunition by an illegal alien in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) and former 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence—specifically, the ammunition that formed the basis of his conviction. He reserved in writing the right to appeal this ruling when he

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-40658 Document: 56-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2024

No. 23-40658

entered his conditional guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). We review the factual findings for clear error and the ultimate consti- tutionality of law enforcement action de novo. United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2014). “[T]he scope of consent to a search is a question of law” that we review de novo. United States v. Iraheta, 764 F.3d 455, 460 (5th Cir. 2014). The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” U.S. Const. amend. IV, so “the ultimate touch- stone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness,” Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To measure the scope of consent, the test is “objective reasonableness—what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange be- tween the officer and the suspect?” Iraheta, 764 F.3d at 462 (internal quota- tion marks and citation omitted). Saldana-Alaniz fails to show that a reasonable person would not have understood that he was consenting to a search of his one-room efficiency apartment when he told officers that they could search his apartment. See id.; see also United States v. Sarli, 913 F.3d 491, 495 (5th Cir. 2019). More- over, even if the officers failed to appreciate a limitation that he contends he placed on his consent, that mistake was reasonable given that Saldana-Alaniz expressly agreed to the search and told them he lived in the efficiency. See Heien, 574 U.S. at 60–61. AFFIRMED.