Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Joseph CARRON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-10
Citations: 86 F. App'x 743
Docket Number: No. 03-40867
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Joseph CARRON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 743–743

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Joseph CARRON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-40867.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 10, 2004.
James O. Jenkins, Jr, Assistant US Attorney, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Alton Jones, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jeremy Joseph Carrón appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. He argues that the district court erred in denying him standing to assert his Fourth Amendment rights in the home of his co-defendant, Todd Broussard; that the district court erred in finding that Broussard voluntarily consented to the search of his home; and that the district court erred in finding that the search warrant issued on Broussard's home was valid.
We assume arguendo, without deciding, that Carrón had a legitimate expectation of privacy in Broussard's home and, therefore, that he has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search. See United, States v. Wilson, 36 F.3d 1298, 1302 (5th Cir.1994). We hold, however, that the district court's factual findings that Broussard consented to the search of his residence and, under the totality of the circumstances, that his consent was voluntarily given were not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Randall, 887 F.2d 1262, 1265 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Zucco, 71 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir.1995).
Because we find that Broussard consented to the search of his residence, we do not address the issue of whether the search warrant was valid.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.