United States v. Soria

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 24-3541
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-3541 D.C. No. Appellee, 2:22-cr-00335-MWF-1 v. MEMORANDUM*

FRANCISCO SORIA,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 16, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE, IKUTA, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Francisco Soria appeals the district court’s denials of

his motion to suppress, his related request for an evidentiary hearing, and his

motion to dismiss his Section 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession count. We affirm the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). district court’s denials.

We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s final judgment pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, United

States v. Zapien, 861 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 2017), the validity of a search warrant,

United States v. King, 985 F.3d 702, 707 (9th Cir. 2021), and the constitutionality of

a federal statute, United States v. Oliver, 41 F.4th 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2022). We

review factual findings for clear error. Zapein, 861 F.3d at 974. And we review the

denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cook, 808

F. 3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2015).

1. The warrant was valid. The magistrate issued it based on the officers’

adequately particular description of “the place to be searched.” U.S. Const. amend.

IV; see also Mena v. City of Simi Valley, 226 F. 3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir. 2000)

(citation omitted). And the officers had probable cause as to the “specific areas”

identified in the warrant, having gathered evidence via authorized Title III wiretaps

indicating narcotics trafficking tied to Soria’s address and his Jeep. Maryland v.

Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84–85 (1987); Mena, 226 F. 3d at 1036–1038. Although

law enforcement learned that the warrant was overbroad as to his address when

they executed the warrant and discovered the building was not a “single-family

residence” but had been divided into three makeshift subunits, officers neither

knew nor should have known of this arrangement when seeking the warrant.

2 24-3541 Garrison, 480 U.S. at 85–86. There was no record of residential subdivision at

that address, which was listed as Soria’s official address on his driver’s license.

Additionally, there were no clear signs of multiple residences on the exterior of the

home or through map views available online. Despite overbreadth discovered in

hindsight, the warrant was valid. Garrison, 480 U.S. at 80, 85–87 (upholding a

warrant that described only a “third floor apartment” when the building in fact had

“two separate units on the third floor”); see also Mena at 1035–36 (upholding a

warrant authorizing the search of a “single family dwelling” that was in fact a

“multi-unit dwelling”).

2. The execution of the warrant as to Soria was also valid, and he lacks

standing to challenge its execution as to his neighbors. Soria effectively admitted

that he has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” only in his subunit. He thus lacks

standing to challenge officers’ engagements with the other subunits because he has

neither a property nor possessory interest in them. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128,

148 (1978); see U.S. v. Zermeno, 66 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1995); U.S. v.

Paopao, 469 F.3d 760, 765 (9th Cir. 2006) (rejecting a suppression motion based

on an “officer’s entry” and “protective sweep” of a location where the defendant

lacked a “reasonable expectation of privacy”). Moreover, the only evidence seized

was taken from his residence. As the suspect, Soria cannot suppress evidence

found in his home pursuant to a valid warrant.

3 24-3541 3. The district court denied Soria’s request for an evidentiary hearing

seeking to determine what police knew and when they knew it upon obtaining and

then executing the warrant because it had “resolved the potential factual dispute in

[Soria’s] favor.” It did not abuse its discretion in doing so. Cook, 808 F. 3d at 1201.

4. The district court properly upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). We held in United States v. Duarte that this provision is constitutional

on its face and as applied to “non-violent felons.” 137 F. 4th 743, 748 (9th Cir. 2025)

(en banc). Soria’s Section 922(g)(1) count is thus constitutional, both facially and

as applied.

The district court’s denials of Soria’s motion to suppress, request for an

evidentiary hearing, and motion to dismiss are AFFIRMED.

4 24-3541