Case: 23-30563 Document: 00517064873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-30563 FILED Summary Calendar February 15, 2024 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus John S. Lee, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:22-CR-120-1 ______________________________ Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * John Lee conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and to one count of possession of firearms by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), reserving his right to contest the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-30563 Document: 00517064873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2024

No. 23-30563

suppress evidence uncovered from a trash container as part of a “trash pull” at his residence.

For the denial of a suppression motion, we review factual findings for clear error and the constitutionality of law enforcement action de novo.

United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2014). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. United States v. Alvarez, 40 F.4th 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2022).

Lee argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress because he manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in his trash container that was objectively reasonable. In California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 37 (1988), the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit “the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.” Because Lee placed his trash container “in an area particularly suited for public inspection and, in a manner of speaking, public consumption, for the express purpose of having strangers take it,” Lee could have “no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items” that were discarded, whether located within the curtilage of his home or not. Id. at 40-41 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). There is no error in the district court’s ruling.

AFFIRMED.