It is defense counsel’s duty to bring up a record sufficient for appellate review. Here, defense counsel did not include the affidavit and SW in the appellate record, and that would be sufficient to affirm, except the government included it in the record [likely to avoid a 2255 petition], so the merits can be reached. United States v. Henderson, 190 Fed. Appx. 667 (10th Cir. August 3, 2006)* (unpublished).

When officers have a SW, the defendant carries the burden of showing that he was a guest sufficient to have standing. Id.

With these principles in mind, we must reject Mr. Henderson’s contention he had a subjective expectation of privacy in the outbuilding sufficient to challenge the search by means of a motion to suppress. First, it is clear Mr. Henderson is not claiming he was an overnight guest at the owner’s residence. Other than his self-serving assertion he spent some unidentified nights in the outbuilding with the owner’s permission, nothing in the record provided on appeal remotely establishes Mr. Henderson should be afforded the protections of an overnight houseguest. At best, he was “merely present with the consent of the householder” which is a status afforded no Fourth Amendment protection. See Carter, 525 U.S. at 90. In addition, the record provided fails to establish the outbuilding constitutes curtilage of the house, to which the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures extends, and even if it did, Mr. Henderson has not shown such protection extended beyond the outbuilding owner to him. Thus, Mr. Henderson has discernibly failed to carry his burden in establishing he possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in the outbuilding, and therefore, he has failed to show he had the capacity to challenge the search and seizure therein.