Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51234/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51234-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Shane Scott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51234

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TIMOTHY SHANE SCOTT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-161

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Timothy Shane Scott appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base and his withinguidelines sentence of 77 months in prison. Scott argues that the district court 

erred in denying his motion to suppress based on the finding that he lacked 

standing to challenge the warrantless search of a motel room registered to his 

co-defendant because he was merely a lawful visitor and not an overnight guest 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51234 Document: 00513226596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2015
No. 14-51234

2

in the room. He further asserts that the district court abused its discretion in 

concluding that exigent circumstances justified the search.

“A defendant wishing to preserve a claim for appellate review while still 

pleading guilty can do so by entering a ‘conditional plea’ under Rule 11(a)(2) of 

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 

915 (5th Cir. 1992). There was no written plea agreement, and nothing in the 

record indicates that Scott entered a conditional guilty plea. See United States 

v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 238-40 (5th Cir. 2007). Scott entered a voluntary and 

unconditional guilty plea, the validity of which he does not challenge, and, 

thus, has waived any Fourth Amendment claims. See United States v. Scruggs, 

714 F.3d 258, 261-62 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Daughenbaugh, 549 F.3d 

1010, 1012-13 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279, 286 (5th 

Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-51234 Document: 00513226596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2015