Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy Shane SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-09
Citations: 619 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 14-51234
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy Shane SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 371–371

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy Shane SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-51234
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 9, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lane Andrew Haygood, Haygood Law Firm, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Shane Scott appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base and his within-guidelines sentence of 77 months in prison. Scott argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress based on the finding that he lacked standing to challenge the warrant-less search of a motel room registered to his co-defendant because he was merely a lawful visitor and not an overnight guest in the room. He further asserts that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that exigent circumstances justified the search.
"A defendant wishing to preserve a claim for appellate review while still pleading guilty can do so by entering a 'conditional plea' under Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5th Cir.1992). There was no written plea agreement, and nothing in the record indicates that Scott entered a conditional guilty plea. See United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 238-40 (5th Cir.2007). Scott entered a voluntary and unconditional guilty plea, the validity of which he does not challenge, and, thus, has waived any Fourth Amendment claims. See United States v. Scruggs, 714 F.3d 258, 261-62 (5th Cir.2013); United States v. Daughenbaugh, 549 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279, 286 (5th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.