The appellate court affirmed a criminal judgment imposed by the district court following appellant’s guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The court held that the government may argue for the first time on appeal that a defendant lacks standing to challenge the protective sweep of an illegal gambling room from which police seized the defendants handgun. Appellant cannot challenge the officers entry or protective sweep because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the gambling room, a commercial establishment in which he neither worked nor had a possessory interest. The court held that even if the defendant did have standing to challenge the protective sweep, his claims are meritless. United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1989), upholding a protective sweep of the interior of a house when the defendant had been arrested just outside the door of the house because an individual can still pose a threat to officers outside of it, remains good law; the officers had a reasonable suspicion of danger to justify the protective sweep, given a reasonably detailed tip that two robbers were in the gambling room; and an officers search behind a sofa did not exceed the scope of the protective sweep.