T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M A G D A LEN O CERV A N TES, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50312 D . C . N o. 5: 09 -c r- 00 01 1-V A P -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R AU L S E R R AN O, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50377 D . C . N o. 5: 09 -c r- 00 01 1-V A P -3

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia V i r gi ni aA . P hi l l i ps , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED OC T 18 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

Th e H o n o r ab l e G o r d o n J . Q u i s t , Se n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** * D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orW e s t e rn M i c hi ga n, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 2 S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r12, 2012 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f or e : K L E I N F E L D a nd M c K E O W N , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd Q U I S T , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. *** C o-defendant s M agdal eno C ervant es and R aul S errano appeal the di stri ct c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f

th e irm o tio n s to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e . C ervant es al so ar gu es thathi s app ea l w ai ver i s unenforceabl e, and thathi s s ent ence w as procedural l y and subst ant i vel y f l aw ed. S errano ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d i n c onc l udi ng tha the l a c ke d s t a ndi ng t o c ha l l e nge the s e a r c h of the bui l di ng w he r e m e tha m phe t a m i ne w a s i ni t i a l l y f ound. I C e rva nt e s ’ appe a l w a i ve ri s e nf or c e abl e be c aus e “ ( 1) the l a ngua ge of the w ai ver e ncom pass es hi s r i gh tt o app ea l on the grou nd s r ai se d, and (2) the w ai ver [ w a s ] know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y m a de . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a hm a n, 642 F . 3d 1257,3

1 2 5 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . J e r o n im o , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 3 ( 9 th C i r. 20 05 ). C ervant es w as prov i ded w i th a court -c ert i fi ed S pani sh-s peaki ng i nt erpret er a tboth hi s c ha nge of

pl e aa nd s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ngs . A thi s c ha nge of pl e ahe a r i ng, C e rv a n te s ’ b ilin g u a l a tto rn e y s a id th a t h e h a d tr a n s la te d th e p le aa g r e e m e n t in to S pani sh for C ervant es , and C ervant es ac kn ow l edged thatthe pl eaagre em entw as i nt erpret ed or transl at ed i nt o S pani sh for hi m . T he courtal so expl ai ned the appeal w ai ver t o C ervant es , and C ervant es i nd i ca t ed thathe un ders t oo d thathe w as la r g e ly g iv in g u p h is r ig h t to ap p e a l h is c o n v ic tio n , a n d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l ale g a l, g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e , w h ic h is w h a t h e g o t. T he re cord al so i nd i ca t es thatC ervant es i s aU . S . ci t i ze n w ho att ended s c h o o l in th e U n ite d S ta te s up to tw e lf th g r a d e a n d la te rw e n t to atr a in in g s c h o o l in th e U n i t ed S t at es fo r sh i p p i n g an d recei v i n g . C erv an t es su b m i tt ed m u l t i p l e l ett ers, w hi c h he purport e dl y w r ot e , t o the c our ti n E ngl i s h. F i na l l y , C e rva nt e s t ol d the c ourttha tw hi l e he s pe a ks S pa ni s h a thom e , he a l s o s pe a ks E ngl i s h. T hus , the r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t C e rv a n te s ’ w a iv e rw a s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry , d e s p ite4

the f a c ttha the di d notha ve ac our t - c e r t i f i e d i nt e rpr e t e rdur i ng hi s c onve r s a t i ons w ith h is la w y e rab o u t th e p le aa g r e e m e n t. II S errano l ac ks st andi ng t o chal l enge the se ar ch of the bu i l di ng w here m e tha m phe t a m i ne w a s i ni t i a l l y f ound. S e rr a no w a s notpr e s e nta tthe t i m e of the s e a r c h, a nd ne ve rs t a y e d ove rni ghti n the bui l di ng. S e rr a no c l a i m s tha the pa i d r e nt to C e rv a n te s , b u t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t th is te s tim o n y w a s n o t c r e d ib le . H e l ac ked an o bj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e e xp ec t at i on of pri vacyi n the bu i l di ng . S ee S m i th v. M a ry l a nd, 442 U . S . 735, 740 ( 1979) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s . v. S i l va , 247 F . 3d 10 51 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). W e D I S M I S S C e rva nt e s ’ appe a l , a nd A F F I R M the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of S erran o ’ s m o t i o n t o su p p ress.