Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0734-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin FUQUA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10278
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 16, 2016  San Francisco, California
    Filed January 03, 2017
    Susan B. Gray, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Lisa M. Sciandra, Attorney, Lisa M. Sciandra, Attorney at Law, San Leandro, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: HAWKINS, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kevin Fuqua (“Fuqua”) appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.

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 674 (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. 2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.