United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 18, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10768
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES ROBERT EDWARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-7-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Robert Edwards appeals his guilty plea conviction of
possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 5861(d). Edwards reserved in his plea agreement the right to
appeal the district court’s suppression ruling. The record
indicates that facts relevant to Edwards’s standing were not at
issue when the district court considered, and denied, Edwards’s
motion. See United States v. Irizarry, 673 F.2d 554, 556-57 (5th
Cir. 1982). Therefore, we may consider the Government’s
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-10768
-2-
argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that Edwards
lacked standing to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge. Id.
Edwards argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were
violated when officers conducted a search and that the district
court erred when it enhanced his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(5). A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search
and seizure only though the introduction of damaging evidence
secured by a search of a third person’s premises or property has
not had his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. Rakas v.
Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133 (1978). The stipulated facts set
forth in Edwards’s plea agreement indicate that Edwards did not
own the vehicle, and the record does not otherwise indicate that
Edwards personally had an expectation of privacy in the vehicle.
See United States v. Vega, 221 F.3d 789, 795 and n. 4 (5th Cir.
2000). Therefore, Edwards lacked standing to challenge the
search of the vehicle. See id.
Regarding Edwards’s challenge to the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5)
enhancement, Edwards was an admitted purchaser and user of
illegal drugs, and he admitted that he had been using illegal
drugs for the last four to five days at the hotel where he was
apprehended. Additionally, pseudoephedrine (a precursor to
methamphetamine), a used syringe and spoon, and methamphetamine,
were found in the vehicle with the hand grenades. Also, although
Edwards later stated that he paid for the hand grenades, he
originally told officers that he received methamphetamine in
No. 05-10768
-3-
exchange for agreeing to dispose of the hand grenades.
Possession of one gram or less of methamphetamine is a felony
under Texas law. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102,
481.115; Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35. Therefore, the district
court’s finding that Edwards possessed the hand grenades in
connection with his methamphetamine possession is plausible in
light of the record as a whole. See United States v. Condren,
18 F.3d 1190, 1199-1200 (1994). The district court therefore did
not clearly err when it applied the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5)
enhancement to Edwards’s sentence.
The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.