USA V. KEVIN FUQUA, No. 15-10278 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 03 2017 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-10278 D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00287-JD-1 v. MEMORANDUM* KEVIN FUQUA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 16, 2016** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Kevin Fuqua (“Fuqua”) appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm. * 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). On appeal, Fuqua presents an argument for suppressing evidence in his case that he did not raise before the district court. By not raising it below, Fuqua has waived the argument. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C). Fuqua has not shown why he should be granted relief from his waiver. While intervening changes in law may provide grounds for such relief, contrary to Fuqua’s argument, United States v. James, 810 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2016), does not represent an intervening change in pertinent Fourth Amendment law. Even if Fuqua did not waive this argument, the police officers’ conduct here did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Fuqua was not seized when officers knocked on the window of the car he was sleeping in, woke him in the process, and asked to speak with him. See United States v. Washington, 490 F.3d 765, 770 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.