United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jens Schneider, Defendant-appellant, 37 F.3d 1507 (9th Cir. 1994)

Before: O'SCANNLAIN and NELSON, T.G., Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE, Senior District Judge.¹ 

MEMORANDUM² 

Schneider appeals from his conviction for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He claims that the district court erred in denying him standing to challenge the searches of the residence of a codefendant who had pled guilty. He also claims that the district court erred in ruling that the search of his briefcase was a valid inventory search.

Whether a defendant has standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claims is reviewed de novo, although underlying findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Davis, 932 F.2d 752, 756 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Iglesias, 881 F.2d 1519, 1522 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1088 (1990). This Court reviews for clear error a district court's determination of facts underlying a decision on a suppression motion, United States v. Johnson, 936 F.2d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 1991), and reviews de novo whether the facts establish a valid inventory search, United States v. Bowhay, 992 F.2d 229, 230 (9th Cir. 1993).

Because we find that under the standards set forth in Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171-72 (1969) and Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143-44 (1978), appellant did not have standing to challenge the searches of a codefendant's residence, and find that the search of the briefcase was a valid inventory search under the standard set forth in Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990) and in United States v. Mancera-Londono, 912 F.2d 373, 375 (9th Cir. 1990), the district court is

AFFIRMED.