United States v. Jose Arturo Armenta

103 F.3d 141 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Arturo ARMENTA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-50113. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 5, 1996. * Decided Nov. 25, 1996. 1 Before: FERNANDEZ and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 In his third appeal, Jose Arturo Armenta contests the district court's third denial of his motion to suppress 71 kilograms of cocaine seized from a rented motor home. Armenta claimed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the motor home because he paid the rental on the motor home, drove the motor home, and was found in the motor home by the searching officers. The district court rejected his arguments. We affirm. 4 A district court's decision that a defendant lacks Fourth Amendment standing to contest a search and seizure involves "a mixed question of fact and law." United States v. Armenta, 69 F.3d 304, 306-07…