Case ID: f-appx_232/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffrey Thomas GEORGE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-11001
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 24, 2007.
    
      Paul Lee Yanowitch, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Franklyn Ray Mickelsen, Jr., Broden & Mickelsen, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Thomas George appeals his conviction and sentence for fraud and related activity in connection with computers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4). George argues that the district court erred in finding that his estranged wife, Kay, had common authority to consent to a search of a tub found in the attic of her residence containing incriminating evidence against him. He contends that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the tub as evidenced by his actions.

Kay had exclusive and private use and possession of the residence, including the attic, pursuant to a state court order. The tub was found in the attic among other tubs containing Christmas decorations and items belonging to both Kay and George. The tub was unsealed, unmarked, and unlocked. Further, George left the residence in January 2005 and never attempted to enter the attic to retrieve any of his belongings.

George did not exhibit an expectation of privacy in the attic or the tub. See United States v. Shelton, 337 F.3d 529, 536-37 (5th Cir.2003). Therefore, Kay George had common authority to consent to the search of the attic, including the tub. Id. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.