Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rafael PARTIDA-ZARAGOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-29
Citations: 704 F. App'x 399
Docket Number: No. 16-41549 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rafael PARTIDA-ZARAGOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 399–400

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rafael PARTIDA-ZARAGOZA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-41549 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed November 29, 2017
Eileen K. Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Roberto Balli, Attorney, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
' PER CURIAM:
Rafael Partida-Zaragoza pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiring to harbor an undocumented alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1824. Partida-Zara-goza's guilty plea was conditional under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), and he reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence acquired during a search of a house in Laredo, Texas, that resulted in his arrest.
Nothing materially distinguishes Parti-da-Zaragoza's case from that of his code-fendant, Everardo Rodriguez-Mendoza. We thus conclude that Partida-Zaragoza lacked standing to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search. See United States v. Rodriguez-Mendoza, 697 Fed.Appx. 853 (5th Cir. 2017); see also United States v. Briones-Garza, 680 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1982) (involving similar facts and holding that standing was lacking).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.