United States of America v. Ricardo Castillo, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1195
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Ricardo Castillo, Jr.,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: August 10, 2022
Filed: August 15, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Ricardo Castillo, Jr., appeals after he pleaded guilty to a child pornography
offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

-- 1 of 2 --

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court1 erred by
denying his motion to suppress.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying
the motion to suppress. Castillo did not show that the head of security for his former
employer and the digital forensics expert who conducted a forensic examination of
his work computer should be deemed agents of the government for Fourth
Amendment purposes. See United States v. Ringland, 966 F.3d 731, 735 (8th Cir.
2020); United States v. Weist, 596 F.3d 906, 910 (8th Cir. 2010). We agree with the
district court that Castillo did not show that the two private individuals acted solely
or primarily with the intent to assist law enforcement or that the government directed
them to search the computer. See Ringland, 966 F.3d at 736; United States v.
Highbull, 894 F.3d 988, 992-93 (8th Cir. 2018). We also agree that Castillo did not
have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his work laptop, as his employer’s
policies informed him that he should not expect such privacy. See Biby v. Bd. of
Regents, of Univ. of Neb., 419 F.3d 845, 850-51 (8th Cir. 2005).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --