Teeth

MEMORANDUM *

A jury convicted Defendant Neil Len Teeth of assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(6). We affirm.

1. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error but review de novo its conclusion of law that Defendant lacked standing to challenge the searches of the victim’s home. United States v. Zermeno, 66 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir.1995). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendant was not a resident at the time of the searches, having moved out with all his possessions a few weeks earlier. Under Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96-97 , 110 S.Ct. 1684 , 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990), Defendant’s overnight stay three days prior to the first search did not vest him with a legitimate privacy expectation in the victim’s home.

2. Defendant argues that his statements to the police should have been suppressed because they were the fruit of illegal searches of the victim’s home. Because he lacks standing to challenge the searches, he likewise cannot prevail on this derivative claim as to his later statements. United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 85 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980). Again, the…