Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Wetter NEELD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-20
Citations: 235 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 06-10186
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. George Wetter NEELD, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMPSON, KLEINFELD, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. George Wetter NEELD, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-10186.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed July 20, 2007.
Camil A. Skipper, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Robert M. Holley, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: THOMPSON, KLEINFELD, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
George Wetter Neeld appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his home pursuant to a warrant. We affirm. We review de novo the district court's denial of Neeld's motion to suppress, but we review the factual findings underlying the decision for clear error. United States v. Kemmish, 120 F.3d 937, 939 (9th Cir. 1997). Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we will not recount it here.
I
Neeld argues that the officers used excessive force against his wife when they entered his home with guns drawn and at least one officer pointed a gun at his wife. Neeld lacks Fourth Amendment standing to challenge a potential violation of his wife's Fourth Amendment rights. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171-74, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); United States v. Pulliam, 405 F.3d 782, 786 (9th Cir.2005).
II
Neeld also argues the officers violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(f)(1)(C) because the warrant was not served at the outset of the search. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Rule 41 did not apply because the search was not "federal in character." See United States v. Marshall, 338 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Palmer, 3 F.3d 300, 302-03 (9th Cir.1993). Moreover, Neeld offered no evidence that the violation was of constitutional magnitude, the officers "acted in intentional and deliberate disregard of Rule 41," or that Neeld was prejudiced as a result of the violation. United States v. Martinez-Garcia, 397 F.3d 1205, 1213 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.