Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): our precedents still foreclose a defendant from successfully excluding “evidence that has been ‘come at by exploitation’ of a violation of somebody else’s rights.” Jarvi 537 F.3d at 1259. Defendant concedes on appeal that he lacks “standing” to challenge the officer’s initial entry, which means that he had no expectation of privacy in Gonzalez’s residence. Defendant’s brief demonstrates he understands the equivalence of these two concepts. Even if Defendant had not made this concession, we would affirm the district court’s conclusion that Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in Gonzalez’s residence. The district court’s conclusion falls squarely within a host of controlling authority. See, e.g., Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 90, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Thomas, 372 F.3d 1173, 1176 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a person at anothers residence solely for the purpose of engaging in drug related activity has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence (B) holding that residence in the cnmi before 2009 was not residence in the united states for naturalization purposes (C) holding residence means legal residence for will probate (D) holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found (E) holding a person who is present at anothers home with permission simply for the purpose of consummating a business transaction does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there
Output (English): holding that residence in the cnmi before 2009 was not residence in the united states for naturalization purposes