Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michelle Elaine SERRAO, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan Douglas Rosenquist, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-21
Citations: 234 F. App'x 707
Docket Number: Nos. 05-10183, 05-10343
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michelle Elaine SERRAO, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bryan Douglas Rosenquist, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 707–708

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michelle Elaine SERRAO, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bryan Douglas Rosenquist, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 05-10183, 05-10343.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 12, 2007.
Filed June 21, 2007.
Stephan E. Oestreicher, Jr., Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Appellate Section/Criminal Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dennis P. Riordan, Esq., Donald M. Horgan, Esq., Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, CA, for Michelle Elaine Serrao.
George C. Boisseau, Esq., Santa Rosa, CA, for Bryan Douglas Rosenquist.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, CANBY and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michelle Serrao and Bryan Rosenquist appeal the district court's denial of their motion to suppress evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The only issue pressed here by appellants—whether the warrant to search Ser-rao's residence was overbroad—was not presented to the district court as required by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b) and 12(e). We therefore conclude that appellants have waived their sole argument on appeal. See United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.2000) (failure to raise a particular ground in support of a motion to suppress constitutes waiver).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.