Long failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in East Clay. The district court found that although there were indicia of Long’s residing at East Clay, such as photographs of the defendant with his family and male clothing that may have been his, these indicia did not establish Long’s privacy interest in East Clay. The district court did not err in finding that Long failed to present sufficient evidence to establish either his residency or reasonable expectation of privacy in East Clay. Two previous cases of this Court have held that miscellaneous indications that a defendant had been in a residence are insufficient to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus standing to challenge the search. See United States v. Sarkisian, 197 F.3d 966, 987 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Armenta, 69 F.3d 304, 308-09
holding that a hotel guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his room during the period of time for which the room is rented holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will holding that defendants who failed to claim interest in items seized from search of a rented storage room and who merely possess the authority to access the room but do not use it without more lack fourth amendment standing to challenge an unlawful search of that area holding that while a mother could consent to a search of her sons room she did not have authority to consent to a search of a locked footlocker within the room holding that the defendants unlawful arrest in his hotel room rendered his subsequent consent to the search of his room invalid even though he signed a consent form allowing the search after his arrest because the government  completely failed to address whether there was a break in the causal relationship between the unlawful arrest and the subsequent search