United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10743
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS FRANCO-ACOSTA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Consolidated with
No. 06-10745
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BERNARDO FRANCO-ACOSTA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-22-1
USDC No. 3:05-CR-22-2
--------------------
No. 06-10743
c/w No. 06-10745
-2-
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Franco-Acosta and Bernardo Franco-Acosta appeal their
conditional guilty plea convictions for conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine. The appellants challenge the
district court’s denial of their motions to suppress their oral
statements and the cocaine seized following a search of Carlos
Franco-Acosta’s airplane.
As part of their plea agreements, the appellants reserved
their rights to challenge the denial of their suppression motions
only as to the cocaine. The appellants’s plea agreements
specifically provided that they were not reserving their rights
to challenge the portion of the ruling related to their oral
statements. Accordingly, any challenge to that portion of the
district court’s ruling is waived by their guilty pleas. See
United States v. Wise, 179 F.3d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Diaz, 733 F.2d 371, 376 n.2 (5th Cir. 1984).
The district court determined that Bernardo Franco-Acosta
lacked standing to challenge the search of the airplane.
Bernardo Franco-Acosta does not challenge this determination on
appeal. Accordingly, the issue is deemed abandoned. See United
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-10743
c/w No. 06-10745
-3-
States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006), cert.
denied, 127 S. Ct. 1505 (2007).
Carlos Franco-Acosta argues that the district erred in
determining that his verbal consent to a search of his airplane
was knowing, voluntary, and effective. The testimony of the
agents established that Carlos Franco-Acosta voluntarily
consented to the search following a non-threatening, consensual
encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. There
is no evidence in the record to suggest that Carlos Franco-Acosta
believed that he was not free to refuse to consent to the search.
Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, Carlos Franco-
Acosta’s consent was knowing and voluntary. See United States v.
Jones, 234 F.3d 234, 242 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, he did not
limit that consent in any way. See United States v.
Mendoza-Gonzalez, 318 F.3d 663, 667 (5th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motion
to suppress the cocaine. See Jones, 234 F.3d at 667.
AFFIRMED.