Llanez-Espinoza

ORDER

This case is resubmitted for decision as of May 15, 2002.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Odin Llanez-Espinoza was convicted of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). He raises six main claims on appeal.

A. Motion to Suppress

Defendant first argues that the marijuana that border agents found in suitcases should have been suppressed. We have held that a “defendant who voluntarily abandons property has no standing to contest its search and seizure.” United States v. Stephens, 206 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir.2000). Whether a defendant abandons property is a question of fact; a court must examine the totality of the circumstances, including whether the defendant denied ownership of the property. United States v. Gonzales, 979 F.2d 711, 714 (9th Cir.1992).

The district court found that Defendant repeatedly denied ownership of the suitcases. That finding is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous. There is no evidence that the abandonment was involuntary or that it occurred as a result of a prior Fourth Amendment violation. Accordingly, the court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.

B. Co-Defendant’s…