United States v. McCoy ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60558
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
MARK ANTHONY MCCOY
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:98-CR-5-ALL-D-D
--------------------
June 23, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mark Anthony McCoy appeals the district court's denial of
his motion to suppress evidence (firearms and incriminating
statements) obtained during a warrantless search of his sister's
apartment while he was a visitor. He contends that no exceptions
justified the warrantless search and that he was not advised of
his Miranda** rights prior to making incriminating statements.
He also appeals the district court's decision to admit evidence
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
**
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
No. 99-60558
-2-
of a prior attempt to obtain a firearm. The district court ruled
that McCoy did not have standing to challenge the search. The
district court ruled that evidence of the attempt to obtain a
firearm was admissible to show intent or absence of mistake or
accident pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
McCoy has not shown that the district court clearly erred in
determining that he did not have standing to challenge the search
because he was not an overnight guest and did not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in his sister's apartment. See
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96-97 (1990). Even if McCoy had
standing to challenge the search, the district court's ruling may
be affirmed on the basis that both he and his sister consented to
the search. See United States v. Davis, 749 F.2d 292, 294 (5th
Cir. 1985) (warrantless search valid where conducted pursuant to
consent); see also United States v. Tello, 9 F.3d 1119, 1128 (5th
Cir. 1993) (court may affirm district court on any valid ground
supported by the record).
McCoy has not shown that his statements should have been
suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings, because a reasonable
person in McCoy’s position would not have understood the
encounter in his sister's apartment to constitute a restraint on
freedom of movement to the degree which the law associates with
formal arrest. See United States v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593,
596 (5th Cir. 1988)(en banc).
McCoy has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion in admitting evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) because
the evidence was relevant to McCoy's intent and there has been no
No. 99-60558
-3-
showing that its probative value was substantially outweighed by
undue prejudice. See United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911
(5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). McCoy has not shown that he was
provided with unreasonable notice of the evidence. See Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b) (prosecution must provide "reasonable" notice of
intended use of extrinsic evidence).
AFFIRMED.