IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-11094

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JASON ANTHONY LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-85-1

Before KING, SMITH, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jason Anthony Lopez was convicted of two counts of possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district 

court sentenced him to a total of 175 months of imprisonment. Lopez appeals 

the denial of his motion to suppress the firearms seized during the search of 

his workshop and his post-arrest statements to law enforcement.

* 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

August 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-11094 Document: 00515516305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2020
No. 19-11094

2

When addressing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review 

factual findings for clear error and the constitutionality of the action by law 

enforcement de novo. United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 

2014). A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress “should be upheld if 

there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it.” United States v. 

Massi, 761 F.3d 512, 520 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Lopez first argues that the district court should have granted his motion 

to suppress because the police officers exceeded the scope of consent provided 

by his girlfriend, Alejandra Gonzalez. He challenges the application of the 

plain view doctrine, asserting that the officers were not permitted to engage in 

a limitless search of the premises.

However, given that officers were lawfully searching the workshop for 

Lopez and had right of access to the space, and given that the firearms or their 

cases were in plain view and their incriminating nature readily apparent, the 

plain view doctrine justified the warrantless seizure of the .45 caliber pistol, 

Springfield rifle, and SKS-type firearm. See United States v. Buchanan, 70 

F.3d 818, 825-26 (5th Cir. 1995).

Second, Lopez argues that the district court should have granted his 

motion to suppress his statement because the interviewing agent violated 

Lopez’s Sixth Amendment rights by continuing to question him even though 

Lopez invoked his right to counsel.

However, the totality of the circumstances establish that Lopez 

understood and waived his right to counsel during his interrogation. The 

interviewing agent reiterated to Lopez during their discussion and before he 

offered any statement about the firearms found in the workshop that it was 

his choice whether to speak to authorities without an attorney present. In 

 Case: 19-11094 Document: 00515516305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2020
No. 19-11094

3

addition, the agent did not ask Lopez any questions about the firearms. 

Rather, Lopez, of his own volition, stated that the firearms belonged to or were 

brought to the unit by his girlfriend. As the Government urges, the initial 

invocation of an attorney cannot necessarily be viewed in a vacuum but rather 

must be viewed in light of the other factual circumstances surrounding the 

discussion. See United States v. Alvarado-Palacio, 951 F.3d 337, 342 (5th Cir. 

2020). The district court did not err in denying Lopez’s motion to suppress his 

statement. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994); AlvaradoPalacio, 951 F.3d at 341-42.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-11094 Document: 00515516305 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2020