Case: 21-30691 Document: 00516423899 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 8, 2022
No. 21-30691 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Orentha James Pea,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:19-CR-294-1
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Orentha James Pea was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment
after being convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he contends that the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30691 Document: 00516423899 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2022
No. 21-30691
estranged wife’s residence. Specifically, he claims that the district court
clearly erred in determining that he lacked standing and that his estranged
wife was unable to consent to the search of the residence after he refused to
allow the police entry.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the
district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for
clear error. United States v. Tello, 924 F.3d 782, 786 (5th Cir. 2019). There
is no clear error if a factual finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole.
United States v. Perales, 886 F.3d 542, 545 (5th Cir. 2018). “‘[W]e may
consider all of the evidence presented at trial, not just that presented before
the ruling on the suppression motion, in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party.’” United States v. Onyeri, 996 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 2021)
(quoting United States v. Ibarra, 493 F.3d 526, 530 (5th Cir. 2007)).
Moreover, the district court’s decision may be affirmed for any reason that is
supported by the record. United States v. Escamilla, 852 F.3d 474, 480 (5th
Cir. 2017).
Regardless of whether Pea was a guest who had standing to challenge
the search of his estranged wife’s residence, the search was not improper
because it was conducted with his wife’s consent. While a co-occupant
generally has the authority to consent to a search, “a physically present
inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search is dispositive . . .
regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant.” Georgia v. Randolph, 547
U.S. 103, 122-23 (2006). However, this exception is limited and “applies
only when the objector is standing in the door saying ‘stay out’ when officers
propose to make a consent search.” Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292,
306 (2014). Because Pea objected to the search of his wife’s residence after
he was arrested and placed in a police cruiser, he was not physically present
at the residence and was unable to override his estranged wife’s consent. See
Randolph, 547 U.S. 122-23.
2
Case: 21-30691 Document: 00516423899 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2022
No. 21-30691
Accordingly, the judgment of the district is AFFIRMED.
3