Whether the trial and appellate court erred in adjudging that Petitioner had no standing to request suppression of evidence obtained from a warrantless search

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ISSUE 1: Whether the trial and appellate court erred when it adjudged that Petitioner had no standing to request suppression of evidence obtained from a warrantless search of Co-Defendant Weeks private residence where he was physically present within the residence at the time of the . search. Issue 2: Whether the trial and appellate court erred when they adjudged that Co-Defendant Weeks consent to search was sufficient to permit a warrantless search of his residence where Petitioner was also physically present within the ; residence and law enforcement had knowledge that Petitioner had carried personal property, a Saks Fifth Avenue style shopping bag, into the private residence and was not given an opportunity to object to the warrantless search and seizure of evidence including the shopping bag and cocaine. Issue 3: Whether the trial and appellate court committed plain error when they adjudged that Co-Defendant Weeks consent to search was sufficient to permit a warrantless search of his residence where his wife and co-inhabitant of his residence was physically present within the residence and was not given an opportunity to object to the warrantless search. ‘ 3 Issue 4: Whether the trial and appellate court erred when they permitted the introduction of prior bad act evidence under Rule 404(b) where (1) the evidence was not established to be relevant to an issue other than a defendant’s character, (2) there was insufficient proof to allow a jury to find that the defendant committed the act by a preponderance of the evidence, and (3) the evidence’s . probative value, if any, was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403. Issue 5: Whether the trial and appellate court erred when they permitted the introduction of prior bad act evidence under Rule 404(b) and did not (a) give a cautionary instruction at the time the prior bad act evidence was ; introduced during trial and (b) did not instruct the jury at the close of the case with the Rule 404(b) requested : instruction. Issue 6: Whether the trial and appellate court erred when they declined to impose a variance sentence below the computed advisory guideline range after considering the totality of the circumstances concerning Petitioner’s sentence. 4 PrefixIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 2018 JUAN CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT The Petitioner, JUAN CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari'issue to review the judgment-order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit entered on February 21, 2019, Case No. 17-13926-EE; Southern District of Florida Case Numbers 16er20057-JAL-2.