Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin FUQUA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-03
Citations: 672 F. App'x 734
Docket Number: No. 15-10278
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin FUQUA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 734–735

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin FUQUA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10278
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 16, 2016 San Francisco, California
Filed January 03, 2017
Susan B. Gray, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Lisa M. Sciandra, Attorney, Lisa M. Sciandra, Attorney at Law, San Leandro, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: HAWKINS, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kevin Fuqua ("Fuqua") appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.
On appeal, Fuqua presents an argument for suppressing evidence in his case that he did not raise before the district court. By not raising it below, Fuqua has waived the argument. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C). Fuqua has not shown why he should be granted relief from his waiver. While intervening changes in law may provide grounds for such relief, contrary to Fuqua's argument, United States v. James, 810 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2016), does not represent an intervening change in pertinent Fourth Amendment law.
Even if Fuqua did not waive this argument, the police officers' conduct here did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Fuqua was not seized when officers knocked on the window of the car he was sleeping in, woke him in the process, and asked to speak with him. See United States v. Washington, 490 F.3d 765, 770 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.